MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
do how do you square that with the bread and more case we we said that there was no probability that the outcome would differ given the fact that he had in that case seven felony felony convictions a you know what would a reasonable defendant would have done we have you arguing we have to look at what this defendant would have done and so any defendant comes in and says why would have done it differently you're not giving us any opportunity to pressure test and so we would have we would be giving a free maybe not a get out of jail free card but but at least you know a free opportunity for a defendant to revisit this if we had accepted your theory i think that's a valid concern your honor in this case i don't  something in the record to show that he actually did know about way and sure i think there is and the district court didn't have sufficient weight to that that which i can explain of individual decision should be taken into account to determine whether this particular individual you know would have reasonably made a difference is that is that the government's argument hurdle at trial we should i mean for example there might and we would if it only had one prior felony conviction and it was you know there might have been some argument that he didn't know that it was a felony he served you know less than a year  in that case we might say well you know maybe he would have made a different decision but in this case it's so overwhelming there you know and the consequences would have been so bad for
you look great good sound very clean first water call you all are ok here's randall randall that's a small thing of water for how much both and they're both really good
the three issues that should be addressed today that i would like to address first is a question of whether this appeal can actually be heard it's an issue that's been raised by opposing counsel second is a question of what form of judgment simply requires a showing that the court lacks jurisdiction in their prior ruling so the question that comes up is whether the world court actually like jurisdiction and that decision when they made  evidence of the case is fairly clear that there was no right of jurisdiction person jurisdiction existed because opposing counsel was the party that actually brought this case in the beginning they availed themselves of the courts from the very beginning as a person just garnishment judgment as well as questions of attorney's fees and proper notice and service and things like that so clearly the board had proper subject matter jurisdiction over this issue as well so the question is will was the so based on the facts they had all the noise of hearing that they had nineteen in it and we had a letter sent to them that showed nine hundred made and yet they still claim they had no notice were understanding of when the hearing wise and so because of bad they did were not properly able to represent themselves in cour for you know one petition that has additional requirements in order to be granted to require a meritorious defense or require to diligence to be shown how it goes above and beyond just the simple way to bring some of that prior judgment they simply have not done that in this was properly heard or improperly granted the factual matter is opposing counsel need to show that the court lacked your station in making that decision that is the position that they filed on their own
this actual innocence claiming bail in this regard because it was not based on newly discovered evidence it was not evidence that was material  and in any event they were made available to the defendant prior to his trial i think it was a year prior to his trial in an answer to the defense motion the discovery
commencing for the state district courts thank you now as far as some of the questions i've heard this morning what's really important for the square to dial into and we've cited in our brief is the and this has that part go back to the regulation the original implementation in january one thousand nine hundred and seven was referencing the amendment did a limited order to show cause and it required for the st time one document why did you notice one document there's over two dozen it's certainly not clear about the hardship that my clients wife and five citizen children would face their mental health financial struggles etc what the judge was troubled by was that there was no explanation by the defendant because he pleaded the th regarding why you feel the file  called a notice to appear that it replaces the form or order to show cars that a sign for i sixty two dollars and in addition a proposed rule implements the language of the amended act and that that document requires that the time and place of hearing must be on the notice to appear so the references in the regulations after refer to the same notice to appear created by congress for the st time in one thousand nice seven give the words a notice to appear never appeared in the immigration acts prior to
our first case for the day is jackson was the true general number sixteen two one two one question is whether that provision borders a lawsuit that is based on an end six hundred application that was filed after the plaintiff's removal proceeding right now it was basically ignored and as a consequence of that he didn't raise it anymore because he basically thought there was something wrong with it i mean he's i mean think about this is a the active case and visit case was on hold and during that time in the spring and summer of this year the parties actually worked closely together in good faith which we very much appreciate it issues in that case and try to streamline it and make it as easy as possible going forward and we got to the point where both sides agreed that there was a jedi would issue a material fact as to mr jackson citizenship and therefore it warranted a transfer under twelve for picture b to have a district court and we were at the point of actually presenting an an opposing  order through the motions panel indicated to us that it had some sort of concerns it did not identify what the concern was but it had some sort of concern about that case and but that requirement that that person exhaust administrative remedies in order to get to put that claim heard and it comes straight out of that statute the twelve fifty p the twelve fifty two  i understand what you're you know arguing here we appreciate your efforts on your client's behalf but in light of this remove order how do you get around fifteen zero three a run
and depression as well as personality disorder apart from substance abuse social security operating manual states that substance abuse is not material where there is evidence after a drug free period of one month that there are existing other impairments in this case ecologist dr mr richard washburn tested young when she was more than one month substance free the test results were valid to her appointment was dr washburn the only time and other times she had left that facility in the forty five days was to attend a social security hearing so she had been sober and under the direction of an inpatient facility for forty five things at that point when she had her evaluation with dr washburn who tested her with the appropriate tests that measure levels of anxiety and depression and social security from that standpoint dr washburn was the only person in the record other than dr reed who also had felt that she was unable to work doctor dr green was concerned about her  that attack that actually that she was not able to work even though she went to a clean and sober house several times she became the house president she was really trying and i actually feel to take this case and originally  that i i stepped back and then i realize she was trying so hard to get into treatment and then when she was in treatment for forty one days and i said we can find out what this went really is true about your mental impairment
and you know junior college or whatever and at the time and they want to have a gate and got into heavy petting here to argument is not only is it sexual abuse of a minor but it's a crime what i just described is a common fact pattern the probably transpires around this country in many times over he wouldn't consider all of those kids that are engaged in that kind of case there is there is a necessity for there to be an age gap and even though there's not it's not an element of the crime it's an affirmative  this morning and which the court said that something that is even much less which involved a statute where the elements involved sexual misconduct element of the offense that he  dating it was nonconsensual that's why you would say my hypothetical was not a political both in this case because in my hypothetical they were just teenagers on the day
know what actually happens you have the opportunity to speak to the person whether they are alive or dead that person is not there in physical form it is like you actually speaking to somebody within you  i feel that if you're not living your life in total freedom if you're living a perfect life you don't make judgements of other people in your daily life if you're only every other member of society whether they be of your own religious beliefs religious belief in other words do i need this i feel like every person living in this world and experiencing life daily should be living a life needed at all you could be lying in bed and you can have a conversation with you could be driving a car and you can have a conversation with alice when you put together some sort of program you have to have some sort of method or some sort of  you know the only way to really know what the journey about is about to actually experience one yourself and if you find at any moment that this is uncomfortable i think threatened  small in god that is what it's done for me there was a distance that are found and i couldn't understand where this distance came from because it was little trust and i was wasn't trusting in anything trust and it was so wrong of him to say that i made i've been listening to him for the last few minutes but he's made me believe that i was actually very confused with he is a
that's correct i think there have to be other evidence that comes in our happens already obviously is something that this work can issue directions with if it if it goes that way but again in looking  suppression which has sort of constitutional public policy considerations versus an exclusion of the evidence which is based upon rules of evidence because obviously the public policy says we don't want the state to appeal the trial any type of direction night i don't think you find the defendant out there who would believe you know standing up for the credibility of the state's witnesses and you know what i think this is just an attack upon their credibility and think that those words it's not a threat it's more of him saying i don't believe them that's exactly what this attorney is going to do during trials to try to attack credibility of these witnesses so the jury doesn't believe them so i don't think that goes to consciousness of guilt or somehow through through the temptin to individuals mean i think it is relevant because if it is relevant for the same reason is if he's writing letters to his attorney or sees just writing notes in a journal or something like that
that when she first presented herself she presented herself as a citizen that's not in any affidavit she does not remember exactly what transpired she was one of many people online now we're talking about two different instance we're talking about when she first  and she says and that's when the incident or the report refers to the statement refers to her as having said she she was asserting his citizenship and that she was born in los angeles that first occasion and then the second  and would not be released until she signed the ok and but she never are has said that when she first appear there's no affidavit as i understand it that when she first appear she did my read the statement that she gave to the officer saying that she was she when she first presented herself for admission she said she was a u s citizen and that she knew that it was a violation of law to do that none of require her to have shown up at the border and to have foreseen what would happen to her meanwhile the spotlight of public examination during that sixty days would certainly put on notice the type of culture that challenge well the ultimate relief that you could get there is remove all of the lifetime bar time bar that's the ultimate relief this i would hope that this court would find that the proceedings that transpired they still do according to excuse me i have the case right here you excuse my pronunciation where in that case a woman with a bachelor's degree in english who confessed jokingly a false claim before an immigration judge the adversarial proceedings  i'm going to reserve a closure yes i think you hear from the government or who claim to be lawful permanent residents to have for review right and just to move back a little bit to the whole idea of a person who's seeking admission into the united states and the extent to w only allowed the process that congress intended them for if you allow their research no constitutional problems you're basically saying whatever process you're allowed is that the grace of the the legislature correct  is not so i understand that but didn't she have at least potentially some rights to to obtain lawful status to know i did her mind tell me now not if she had not left that's that a husband and a child here could that conceivably alter the situation in terms of her constitutional rights no you aren't going back to the the district court was careful to know that the permanent resident husband child gave this woman sufficient ties to afford her more rights than simply an arriving alien and without these ties as to what was being done with her and what she was signing off on and i only have to ask this court and our laws permit her to forever remain outside the united states as a result
had the opportunity to interact with the confidential informant the tragedy had the opportunity to oversee the entire proceedings and while the competent government answered questions in camera at that time these subsequent multiple tips call suggesting that there was drug activity taking place at the defendant's residence and instead of just taking those tapes at their word he added an officer corroborating those tips by executing the controlled we need not reach this issue as you have already found it depended fail to make any showing that the effete officer intentionally or recklessly included a false quid in the warrant complaint when still the law on the state of illinois and if this court does and drug activity and the officer corroborates those tips the fact that it was a classy motorhome to do or sedan does not undo that that determination we know that the officer didn't look
viewing of himself of the videotape i think a proper analogy can be made if for example i used to see a stalled car on the side of the road and i would wonder why he stole the car isn't running anymore i didn't have a reason i wouldn't have a good basis for reason but brilliant mechanic who could look under the hood in the can it can tell me that it's out of gas the mechanic can tell me that it broke a activities were not very strenuous that's not the point the point he's looking at it from a layperson is perspective the point is with the three doctors saw when they looked at it they saw her paper flats in the at the weakest which this but i also think that it was it was critical what she did in hyper flexing hyperextended rather it was critical for the doctors fuelling notice the other activities of fertilising the  that had a different opinion that also an opinion that wasn't formed as the other three were by the videotape so i i think to look at this we can look at this as a layperson does well these are very strenuous activities but but really something that destroyed me until dr amanda first saw it was this hyper extension is something that a person with a bad stream can do but a person that has symptomatic back pain from an elf i this one spineless thesis couldn't do say in terms of knowing about all she she she didn't test i don't remember that she testified about knowing about it or i didn't see anything in the record that suggested that she testif record as well for an expression by her that i was in pain afterwards or i was in pain afterwards because i took so much medicine you did what you didn't see they took so much medicine so i was an inpatient ever so that either he or she had to use was a think good even though there's not evidence of her speaking about pain there is evidence of her of her image you can obviously watch or images see that she's not grimacing you see that she's not running into the house in pain or falling on the floor on the ground home i mean these are these these are all inferences that can be made by someone who's watching the table a person about whether or not she's in pain pain didn't see through it to the way the other three doctors who commented on it did saying that this isn't spinal it was these is typing this is perhaps at most a back strain and i used to therefore would ask that the second employer she might probably have stayed with dr mahathir on he would have had no reason he had no reason to suspect anything that she was doing was you know i'm only interested she's lying to me there are things and nothing in there that
and participating in the altercation led to the shooting in this case that that is inherently prejudicial when those witnesses testify to and i'm counsel unconstitutional why now in this case is that way for is not the petitioner and the waiver is the state's burden the reason for that is that what you have in this case is you have a prima facie case where there is no we agree with you on that i don't like to hear you address problems to strickland on to the prejudice aspect of it in particular and i want you to focus on james mayfield's testimony nited states versus wade an analysis on the court identification when you go to the in court again if occasion probably the most important element that should have h the shooting much less the alter case and that preceded the shooting because he was inside sleeping at the time and when you take that testimony you also combine that with the fact that in the hours immedia rather and then when you combine that with the fact that he surprised convicted by a huge of eighteen witness and you combine that with the fact that he admits not at trial that he and mr howard his mother's boyfriend as well as his mother were all talking before the police lineup and you put all of those pieces together the the argument is that his counsel was you know effective and prejudicial in failing to attack identification did over her or the unconstitutional lineup and isn't that directly relevant to her weight analysis as well that would be another factor that would be considered in the weight analysis you're correct  you also have to take into account the fact that that mr mayfield frankly admitted that he was not in a position to see what occurred  that there is a reasonable probability when you have an unconstitutional lineup that is like that is introduced at trial improperly that then the subsequent identification there is also research probability that that is you have the introduction of a essentially an uncontested per se constitutional violation and then you have then you have it doesn't make sense and it would invite litigants to prison it would invite them again present a host of straw men and then knock them down just to avoid having that waiver argument made against them on prejudice
the motion i stated in good faith that the recent addition had been granted i was relying on part of exhibit one which deals with the application for the adjustment application so the practice just to mark that box i assumed that they'd be set a petition had been approved of that was incorrect that is incorrect it's my it's my year and i apologize takes usually one hundred fifteen eight hundred twenty five days to process this type of case according to that estimate cited this petition by august two thousand and three so we're more than eight based on the marriage the difficulty i have found you know the week before we were ready to have arguments filed almost three years ago it should have been decided by now what we have done in the meantime is to and it's none of the records to upgrade this petition because she is now a us citizen we also had to file we're doing everything we can we're in several different with respect to this case do you have any idea how long it's going to take to get this process i don't know your honor i can't really say for certain i did talk to the district council office yesterday about this matter and with regard to the petition that they filed just a few days ago that they will take several months to process they weren't sure exactly you know how long it will depend on whether it's complete and various other things and the best information i have since it would take about six months but i do want to emphasize that the beast petition should have been approved by now wants to be some protections approved then it's all downhill this is a bonafide marriage they have a child it's that would satisfy not i don't know for sure that it wouldn't but we would currently the motion hold in abeyance based on the court's equitable powers and this case is being decided very timely by the way by this court a sole there's no issue there but this is a question and so with sensually personal experiences plus country conditions there's also an issue as to the weight of the evidence that the i j a gave in this case i'd like to touch on briefly and that is fairly unintentionally when he with the issues of i believe in the city and he did find that he was not and chinese and so on but he was not convinced that he had provided all of these personal documents we think that's a relevant issue as to the weight he did incur fortunately he was not hurt during the may riots but he did incur several in iran and the state department has held that christian armenians worst presumptively eligible for asylum so it there's nothing like that in this case the state department has in fact said that attacks on ethnic chinese have dropped sharply with that that particular state department applying we have a totally different situation in that actually it's also in addition to this general ruling on the whole population of armenian christians the petition left her school was closed her church was attacked which was that the church after she left iran soldiers came to her family several times and asked where are the children so even though her family for some reason her parents
there may be some inconsistency that i think that was a long time ago even as the time of his testimony and he was a young man at that point in time started with many things going on i don't think it would be through difficult for him to get something wrong she did not find anyone to be not credible so he said well we were all there ye well that's one of the