MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
i agree with this is he's counsel that there is no record no significant record as to the factors that the court must consider namely whether th significantly was just asking for a few days to prepare i agree with mrs counsel that this case wasn't particularly old it was about eighteen months old at this time both jessica and daryl he were involved so that we don't really know what happened and you know even in the light most favorable this is a close case aspies deficiency there are very very similar to his wife i mean with i've got to basically touch on the differences in the case it is true that there was an attorney who had there were documents i'm going to say i'm not i'm not sure i'm going to save me i'm just not recalling that particular fact addressed to both and and as i say we also have that the record doesn't reflect that the lawyer for my friend was willing ready willing and able to answer that that's that's just not true he was asking for a few days
needed sentence or the job would have otherwise received that sentence and that includes both that includes the argument that she could have pled open and redeemed variance to get her under that one year se short perhaps a better way to say it is the district court judge's findings of fact which are entitled to dock for us here he found that she would not have otherwise received a sentence of under one year and he went through the arguments that  sentence but it was a combination of thought only of the early acceptance of responsibility but also her cooperation and the importance of the information she gave the proffer to the government and gave the government evidence to support an offer but it's unusual for the government to make a recommendation although the guidelines and the guidelines with acceptance would have been fifteen to twenty one months so she still would have needed a variance of more than twenty percent sentence says i would have to assume those were below the guidelines because they pled guilty to various kinds of mail fraud or wire fraud however those defendants has as your honor mentioned were in a completely different situation they were charged she told the grand jury that's what she told her attorney and she continued to stay in that state that even after being found guilty so i don't think it's clear that her sole goal was to avoid deportation it seems clear that she was insistent that she hadn't in fact committed the crime the sh
the later portion simply describes the types of disputes that can be arbitrated those who constitute who is able to to actually trigger arbitration why is th clerk in the court room our suggestion is to disconnect from the meeting and rejoin using the link that might help with the audio  intertwined founded in the same contract obligations why doesn't that appl to thank you
of course traffic school is settled precedence that we didn't even need that presumption of injury applied when you have to react competition which just report found and when you have allegations  wally there was a possible allegation made direct competition but the next step if there is direct competition the traverse who or tell that there is no presumption of injury their potential purchasers even prior purchase for a lot of product came to the company and said hey i found this other stuff put out by compound are going to have to go with also be judged cardon to position i don't know but you need to answer that question if you want me
angeles from the immigration judge in san diego their motion to change venue was denied so his office manager kirk lugo quickly hired attorney mark met in san diego when you say that this is what they usually do i mean is there really a usual circumstance i mean not an expert on this immigration stuff but my understanding is that this was a little bit unusual that i j certainly thought based on the i just citizen when it got sent back to certainly thought this was kind of unusual right so i don't know that i don't know that there's like a usual circumstance for this where we're somebody says hey i tells the v a i want to enter this at additional evidence which i don't think to be i had to allow but be i said to back and said if you know those are all right they say this is what it takes to reopen and they have never even to this day i don't think your client hasn't actually provided an affidavit to the b i hey so i guess as a think i understand this is all irregular and it seems like everybody was confused but in a day doesn't you're at the end of day are we going to pin all that on the b i a n i j are we going to say that b i and i j were within their rights to deny the motion to reopen based on the fact that he had never filed an affidavit step assistance in not filing out a proper affidavit are you saying the other on the other you're talking about the other the earlier so ok right because the attorney the previous attorney mr spence concept the fact that the and so if you don't have that then how can it be clear i don't i'm not sure it is any cases to say it can be clear on the record when you don't even have an affidavit garner we have a very good rd party testimony i missed a appear in court when there's a father motion to change venue and that was absolutely wrong you have to appear in court before the change of venue was granted so one day after  dragon giving them a moment to to a new terror video but we seem to have lost contact with his brady i have asked them to start their video several times and we have called and left a message with them we have an email from them letting us and as i read it here in the i j very st decision that was the basis or one of the bases that i just st sent responder has failed to establish that a complaint against attorney spence has actually been filed so he was on notice as soon as he got that that when it's clear on the face of the record but i'm struggling with is what records i mean if you don't have an affidavit how is that how is that probative evidence of the things that are in the affidavit so i think his argument was well mr marksman festa monye or attorney mark incessantly alone and being his name right is enough i think i think crass to be right about that what is your position on whether mr marxist testimony alone is enough to to make it clear on the face of the record that there was is also saying that he never had a chance to get a hearing in front of the edge and present any evidence
is it researchers concluded that one of the persons who had oral sex of this one might not have been the person that potentially strangled her killer because she was found with outer clothing except a pair of socks
the first one is where the way it's going in this town guilty of two or more alternative theories of the same crimes the first issue of use do those alternative theories merge into a single conviction or just accord in your separate seven one two three step five which is also and those are two separate statutes two separate strict sets of criteria to separate issues higher now at the original trial the defendant was found guilty of of alternative it sounds to me that the mandate for the post conviction first post conviction or church was bright enough to require an examination of the federal constitutional question which is what your
was sufficient for probable cause it's an interesting question but given that it is that he judge looked at this and so this is good enough if it's at least reasonably debatable isn't that good enough for good to section forty one dollars of the sentencing guidelines that application notice inconsistent with the text of the guidelines and therefore not entitled deference under the supreme court's holding in stinson that position is may hate was the case the guidelines are advisory but they are still i believe the term was the lodestar federal sentencing and they are the starting point and in this case the starting point was seventy to eighty seven than an actual thocht correctly and i'm sure the evidentiary the quality of evidence presumably was it did not rise to the level of a substantive of fa we see plenty of cases here where the government used to charge people for conspiracy and just just take one conspiracy charge where there's a whole bunch of individual distribution sure sure that why should i make any difference in the ultimate reasonable to very awkward because of the nature of the prior conviction and finding that his prior criminal history does not accurately reflect his actual criminal history ringback all of those are i think certainly relevant considerations but that's goes diligently to a independent judge for a probable cause determination this is exactly why we have to we are in good faith exception there is nothing here to deter when reasonable minds would forty one point zero without waiting the waiver aloof from that to the main point that you were asking about judge hamilton is that the focus here is the guideline to k two point one and and so the sentencing commission and interpret in its own guidelines incorporated by reference the definition for b one dollar as well as application you know one we do not believe combination of that definition for b one two with the application note is a reasonable interpretation of the under part term control substance fences used to case two point one and i don't think affirm the district court is looking solely at that contained guideline two k two point one we ask ourselves is the undefined term controlled substance offense reasonably interpreted by the sentencing commission or includes of offenses but conspiracies attempts and aiding and abetting i think that it would be not only reasonable construction would be the best construction back to  definition and to create two point one but i think probably possibly a more reasonable interpretation is that the commission intended to some uniformity in the guidelines for what qualifies application note it shows the commission's intent to show to our mr ellis uniformity for what qualifies controlled substance offense and just to get a kind of the policy  lenity approach that when a guideline is ambiguous that doctrine should vary the interpretation should be given to the defendant's side and that's really kind of a two process argu
of we got here because mean you don't have to be in the same room but the property can be in a different room when they take it they say cases that say that you you so you're not near it you're only near definition of robbery of those states at the time the guidelines promulgated that what we're really trying to do is to capture the intent of the from the person or present another would be excluding so many state that's not really be settling on a generic definition and i think that i mean it's consistent with that supreme court's cautions over the years that courts should not be interpretating statutes in such a is you can't rely on the label that the state legislature decides to put on the name of some criminal conduct that has maybe illegal you have to you can look at the label and then you have to decide well what is the common law or now  the legislature of a congress realize that that states can do cool things anything they want regardless of whether they actually fit within the common law definition just like here in massachusetts we call
opposition would be reliable to determine when the events took place it was less than thirty seconds between when an officer mentioned called in for officer in need of assistance which was right when the right when the confrontation became physical i say that is because if you have an individual who has uttered a loud i surrender i give up has his hands in the air for twenty one seconds and then up and then the police officer decides to call for officer to assistance the move one operator answered the call to nine one one with the the bystander reporting the fighting and the shot when the bystander called was it after the shot or and it meant that he hit him three times then he got up and backed up so somewhere in that timeframe it is i would say the record shows twenty one seconds twenty one yes and just to i agree that time frame does matter but i don't think the time frame is the only thing we could look at they are arguing that gray and did not constitute a threat ok and the court has to realize that district court looked at a record from the criminal showing that the minute was inaccurate and the plaintiffs had no response to that or so this report found rightly that the plaintiffs accepted the defendant's evidence of the framing it was not a myth even under the timing that it something within
the specific purpose is to avoid the leveling the playing field no it isn't so much to avoid a leveling the playing field because you can make that parity argument in every daughter predator relationship you can make it in any civil forfeit leaves would be unlawful objectives of which their prices actually created those issues originally considered by the illinois supreme court they said we realize there can be abuse of these cases but the fact of the matter is these funds into the advance payment retainer is to ensure that counsel is retained otherwise you would have a defendant that would never ever be able to get their counsel and what is the problem with that they're not represented equally in that context dolling allow for an advance payment retainer to protect the client that's what exists in this case and that's why when the trial were looked at this aware and their learning about how it can be retained they have to be advised with regard to the manse payment retainer it's their choice the reason they have to be advised is that the effect of dolly when you hear these issues of over me if that happens the security retainer they may be advised to not look at it and go why would i here want to live here if i have to advance five million dollars to just the other side i'm going to get hit not part of the marital status once told me no nine yet those receivables their dust so the only way you can actually deal with some of these things is to lay this out and what i'm suggesting is they had they the general suddenly had no choice in any event they must defer to the illinois supreme court because the rules in practice are slowly under the authority of the illinois herrion that i couldn't find any case law for and found one case that supports that public policy position i understand as the trial court's ruling but i don't have any cases and i have everything to pr be a public policy exception for what is serious one so three i can't find any case law that agrees with that but more importantly and this kind of goes back and this is why
known that david was identified by brenda as he is the alleged father the give him information she gave then they went ahead and listed for purposes of informing the state department hello the father was  of the high school photograph is it your opinion they are it was appropriate to consider those two pieces of evidence or is it your opinion
sixteen which defines this fifth or subsequent you would have to read out that fail language if read together are you limited to fit then you would be basically reading the as only applying to put for comment on one fourteen which was the more significant sixty four subsequent and when the second act one sixty was passed there was no comment whatsoever is there you are there some argument i think that you have had asked us to consider the day they did want to back off on the sixth or more and go back to the fifth or more but if they didn't even talk about it third reading there is a comment on the by the i think just the sponsor the bill and it's a she indicates that basically the reason for this bill is that some people who continually are convicted of driving under the influence have stiffer penalties and so it's the same purpose that was debated more extensively certainly with the first act but again  or six or more and so i don't know i mean you know in terms of what the did the debate was more extensive i don't see that is really changing the reconciling conviction be used to reconcile you know these two asked then the next question is why if these two are on their face or not they're in conflict why can't we just simply
neither one did anything to protect the only disputed issues in this case or first of all sort of the warning my client provided to the guard was sufficiently specific second whether the letter he sent to the warden or actually reached the attorneys general and secretaries of defense are entitled to rely on the division of labor and they can't be made personally personally responsible for anything just by sending them letters while this decisions six years ago that sending a letter to the secretary of defense saying your subordinates are misbehaving in the following way did not make the secretary personally responsible for that misbehavior and that was on a principle of organization that everybody the head of every organization can rely on the division of labor to do their job unless there is an objection to the policy established by the secretary warden did not behave like an operational officer and behaved instead like a supervisor that's problematic under vamps that's the kind of question i'm asking right so specifically in the farmer against brennan which witness i don't think it's contrary to your honor i think the present context is in any respects you don't think it's right for you you really know vance she didn't sound like you did well that's the other problem with that i mean your honor which is i know when you say it's position is contrary to vance to be able to read or you might say i'm sorry i don't know that case i'm not in any position to discuss but saying well that position is contrary to bent's when you haven't read it is not a way to proceed certainly your honor and of those ones as a client i would say based on your description of that just in this argument it does not sound like it's contrary because that was a case involving an executive officer generally and there are cases from this court literally holding that ordin judgment is relying on evidence that should properly be excluded under rule thirty seven and you raise that proper objection do you also have to study and by the way in the alternative i'd like to do some more discovery prison gang members generally which of course is an inherently threatening class of prisoners of course it would have been more specific to say which particular gang but on the strength of those precedents it's absolutely clear and certainly for qualified immunity purposes but the class was specific enough to put everyone who received the morning
regard to idea so that's that's if we put that aside the issue of this case is if the court did this record lower court when this when it dismissed the who will only cause of action for that's correct and as i read the complaint it unless i'm missing something you're alleging only negligent conduct but a common school because it was a private school although the private school receipt funds so that's why we bring up other wady and section five before because even though it say that they told your client that they couldn't do anything that against that school because it was a private school is a private school receiving for reforms from and it is they didn't see it it could have any evidence that the person who told you authority over the private institution so that it which case it would be wrong here with allege but what have you given us to say other than that that they were acting intentionally anyway to give you a complaint and we have to read it broadly and we need to give you the benefit of inferences but i'm asking you if you can help us point anything in the complaint that sheds any more light is no statement who from the bar and said what public schools but they then said your client we're not doing anything that's a private school why would we infer from that that they were discriminating against a client because of the disability it was if if they're attending to disability problems but saying we can't do it here why would we just conclude that they were mistaken or wrong or something that also for example i'll give you example there's there should be some kind of memorandum some kind of document whereby the meeting that was  case that was not it was for get was that a ground below the district court that it was your yes it was it was phrased both in the in the motion to dismiss and then i would like to try to clarify the recent that discovery institute in this
told how many can do since there were well presumably i think in this case if you would look to the record or at the record at least at page four sixteen justice peterson specifically inquired of the state of the attorneys keep it to a bare minimum only the fact of the conviction the title of the charge and nothing else you don't have six witnesses testified to the details of the fact that there were children to the fact that they were friends of that sons but one of the confronted with that and that therefore these were just fundamentally different kinds of of accusations and therefore the the you know the fact of the most patient of girls that have any impact on the question is whether he had molested his son is a very very young very end of the prosecutor summation where she speaking of the seven says the abuse that happened to him to nathan has been confirmed because these other people the two girls in the other case are strong enough and brave enough and courageous enough to come forward she is inviting employing relying upon the very forbidden in france but the instructions should have told the jury they could not draw and which made the admission of this and i think it's it was appropriate for the oregon supreme court to look at that those facts which you know are undisputed in this case they're not challenge and to determine regardless of what one attorney might think is the best way to handle it that's only one reasonable interpretation or one reasonable tactical decision that's not really what the question before us today the question is would any reasonable initial question what any reasonable attorney choose to take the partially on the belief that all that would come in was the fact the two convictions he wasn't sure whether the additional  i believe if the supreme court's decision and wiggins in the two thousand and three turning points to the need to sort of look to that standard in the profession and particularly adopts the a b a standards i think that that makes a speaks to the issue of the appropriateness  states that it would make no difference to his determination i raise those points for the court
because they tend to be found in the matter more as the evidence in this case is certainly serious for that is that the jury's verdict that the defendant had the specific intent to kill at the time that he shot the victim now turning to the
an ongoing criminal enterprise in this case it had been completed on the day he tried to buy and second factor grade is that t express card nothing was done to try to hide the transactions and the second strain factor  but the result was that you know that moment based on all the information then available to them probable cause to believe that these people were involved in this incident and that information properly went into a search warrant cast i don't believe it's because i don't believe it is because i believe that it has more specificity up for the including but not limited to i don't have it in front of me and i could be wrong sion of plain view is the fact that what we have is a separate and county indictment that stems from discovering evidence of prior crimes all of which was seen during the execution of this war and that's consistent with our position that it was overpriced and allowed them to search for anything that they wanted to search for the other position that advice and point out to the court with respect to the magistrate judge goes back to