MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
he knew that the images were in his in that in his  we have insistently indicated that commenting on the evidence is within the purview of the district judge of also said that it's not really a desirable practice and one undertakes to do it they should do it with great care now if you look at it  to tell you that i've tried cases in the dakotas and minnesota as a lawyer and i've presided over cases in the northern half of our circuit as a trial judge and really this sort of comments almost unheard of in our part of the world so i present figure the transcripts i read through the years read but i would say that like you were sitting in minnesota and yes to do this they would look at you like you would come from the dark side of the right and it would just never appen right and so i was just more curious because whenever i've read the cases that generally talk about commenting on the evidence i'm always struck by there were there are obviously parts of the country where this really happens and it's just you know kind of odd to to me and and so this is within your experience
arrangement prevents me if you move step by step nothing of the good seems to violate what the statute law which are saying is that when you get all done with it it doesn't look right and therefore we person pays in the spring court in cases like or holding in the city and barbara be help bring is that you look to the whole transaction to see what was really what really happened at the end of the day was what the parties intended and in that respects that it's important to look a certain congress enacted that statute it was ten years before our firings were ever even conceive of so this particular scheme certainly didn't come to congress as mine and i was just trying to curtail another abuse where they were using tax payers are using tax exempt entities the desk even if it's a tax is intended to and i think in that context congress didn't conceive of the idea that they would be basically uses just a conduit to move money into the contribution of the contribution limits at the time congress is permitted something but not recognized all the ways that taxpayers can put transactions together to avoid tax that this is something to reform doctrine allow chords to to look at the situation and say well given all these factors that limits on the amount of money and individual tax payer can and me ira and certain high income tax payers couldn't take advantage of that at all  so the question is why should why even in the face of nine nine five which plainly didn't contemplate roth iras well principles apply to the side that come back to the parent and or said in this particular situation congress has laid out a very specific scheme that says how this money is going to be taxed in the case of the disqualified does and it didn't say that and and do they didn't troll how much is being moved as opposed to this being an investment that depends on the chance of some company's fortunes and i think what we're saying is the basically what should beach where should be happening here and what we've heard in the second circuit is that this should be treated as dividends to the holders because basically they're passing the money back to themselves and there's a long line of constructive in case law there's a what's the idea that which you know if you're distributing tax issues the packages that are before congress i think is this maybe from their perspective something that they may or may not address in the near future and in the meantime company you know taxpayers who are wealthy enough to have an as the excess continues and there are options that the tax payers if they were to lose this case you know he's the money and hope that their returns match up with their excise tax or to draw the money out and face penalties for early withdrawal so i think there
trial and so what we have to do with the supreme court and trust us to do in the situations of this is to look at the requests that were in you know we are looking for you the numerous specific requests for this type of material and some of the and it's certainly not the computer it's just seems like it's hard to find a more improper or more damning purpose that the jury could ever consider that evidence for so you see your prejudiced no prejudice because we already have that information wherever they have the information they katie that we have witnesses stating the katie is lying that she's been instructed by her mother to life which is consistent with trial strategy meaning that he that there's conceding that it was error but you're saying there's really no prejudice because of the cumulative nature of the impeachment that was already there are you still saying that it was an error that well there's no there's no connection there because one that
father could not leave the jurisdiction your argument was that because it it there was no one to exert right is it isn't clear that carmen objected to the child being taken out of mexico on august rd if she did she was she did own her own your own had to produce the trial and herself to september th hearing as if she traveled back on line you know september th or september th or september th that was her prerogative more time that she now has until your clever hearing date to return the truck but for purposes of our position the very least it was august th and so and it could be argued that at that point it was the september th geographically geographically where yet another week or two weeks to do with her as you wish because she had provisional custody and that was a right among other rights to travel is that including is specially since the reason no specific were saying she could not travel certainly if she went to the let's go court she had standing representation or not she went there complain that the child had been removed and if that's the trigger da
called the police because there were some three black men on the corner where she lived supposedly no argument and she claimed one display to god that actually also gave a up fit the description arguably it's just all you could say possibly one of the men fit the description but it's clear that she did not report any crime should that  and i'm going to emphasize here that cut this these will possibility of additional weapons being involved so even this as you saw on that on route to that particular intersection he's where there is i'm going argument including at least one gun and also it's important just because the color reported seeing one weapon it doesn't mean that it's under reasonable to assume that there were additional weapons we've got the car may not have seen either some things that happened prior to the gun be displayed we don't know whether someone one of those other two individuals may have reasonable conclusion to drive from seeing people who are walking because they may have to st of all it doesn't require that there be active engagement given a crime right at that moment when the encounter leading to a information that they had and reasonable inferences based on their experience in their training so when we look at the totality of the circumstances and it's set aside d things that we wish th that there's no conduct that they're doing that that suggests that there's any kind of an ongoing crime being committed and if it's not an ongoing crime then it's got to be previously convicted or committed felon that point you can see that from officer to boots car i mean they're starting this guy screaming at them and they literally say really whether what did we do but they don't match the description  interfere with any kind of a social act case law it's clear that if i walk away when you say stop that's not interfering with an official act i'm not obstructing and investigation i'm not doing anything of that sort
but we have something that starts the whole process that as he gets out of the car he's not the one who drops it that he's holding onto a pocket or he's holding onto his pants now we could assume that he's pulling them up so that the fall down because many young men wear them lower but we could also reasonably assume couldn't we that he's got something in there and he's running to prevent it from being found well that's certainly one well you know even if we were to make the assumption that he's only holding up his pants something might be heavy in those pants that pulling his pants down mean it seems to come back to doesn't what why is he holding on and runni gun was located so we careless a defendant's argument i think that that is your relative because the court made the specific finding the defendant he had the gun on him when he jumped out of heart and then when he fled he was found within two or three homes where the gun was located almost immediately after the lady heard the noise of these discovered the gun it is all circumstantial can you can we say for sure because no one with the gay member ship the theory of well murray is in the supreme court right now here you know this is being held clearly these cases are being and you're holding bigger role and other cases i guess also waiting to see that these are just physical records they're there are documents that people have said well i know him to be a gang member how does that happen you know most of them don't walk up and say hi i'm a deuce and you could put that in the record but hypo too because i just i think it requires different things the actual driving we all agree the actual being drunk but it's not that the but you to prove those you have to go beyond well the ok the supreme court doesn't necessarily belief act but ok i know i decide this and again it's not something that is before you but it's a concern for me when you're looking and why are these not four separate and they i mean numerous snap chats from didn't just like to that they almost always included the defendant in that this particular one the defendant was wearing the same clothes that he had on when he left  here and really do we all well they pretty much hand the people who were in that video but they weren't really in a position to talk because at least one other of them probably was getting charged i don't know but the other the two in the front they charged with anything they're not likely to say oh yeah that's the guy in the back seat with the gun it was wasn't this more though for the gang membership than it was the gun i mean the gun was mentioned but he commented more on the color of the
the reasons why they have a concern for their safety conducting a path down threats of anybody that makes you just articulated a general concern that people in the world a danger to them we know that but the law says there has to be something more and the officer has to be able to say we rock and the problem we're struggling with here is where in the records do we find those named as posing some sort of potential danger where does the record tell us about what the computer with port
suppose is possible that your client's license was suspended for something that would be an aggravating factor is that true here and it's possible that the state could have discovered death by doing more than just getting the abstract though you could appear that one would assume the state would be the secretary of state so appropriate terms and it was suspended for that particular earlier fender bender and you know it was daytime or nighttime no alcohol is involved and the property damage everybody's is dangerous because they have three speeding tickets in a twelve month period i mean we don't want them to do that but they did say shit for that i don't understand the connection between the two  an aggravating factor or previous duis and a lesser suspicion that has to do with the ordinary rules of the road i mean there's quite a disconnect
to look troublesome he made the decision to invest to be made later decisions about the investment of the deceived adjustment that what times the actually just meant what caused the actual adjustment was points friday about the number of cattle and the value of cattle the fast and mrs parks had did not know anything about those very beginning right how would the later nondisclosure that sort of embarrassed failure to disclose to the right how does that affect the initial investment in the decision to go forward not necessarily the initial investment you are however the record is very clear that mrs properly and it at this point it looks like this fire attack needing our responsibility that's expected of an average individual is now being held against her under the reasons for now spouse and i sometimes use that shorty and in a position superior to her husband where when they're both cool she can get out but you can't it was so never intended to put it wise simply by the fact that they're married them and hundreds did indeed loosen up the standard if you look if you compare sixty thirteen the old judges the new statues first of all they liberalized the old test they took out the requirement that the facts and circumstances that made the deduction not allowable she if she didn't know the legal consequences of those facts it doesn't matter if you knew all the facts and circumstances you have actual knowledge and i think we're all in agreement that neither neither mr or mrs projects had actual knowledge here however the second test would be reason to know and that is whether a reasonably prudent taxpayer in her position at the time she signed the return could be describe it i'm not sure she would feel that way i mean she didn't and i'm highly sophisticated tax shelter attorney or accountant how i want basis would she know that there then very dramatic warnings in plain english that even someone with a high school education could understand one of them even said you know you're reading this and you're thinking that the sensible part is thinking this is just too good to be true this can't be legal lot of them was prepare or an attorney or a c p a known and trusted by the families here it was quite finally it was already mentioned tax code provisions not underlying facts and it's important to note that you could even if they looked up point looked at the point and now the internet or wherever the cattle
to live out what happened during the alleged at the very beginning and strong leverage the court to watch the videos if you don't watch the first one where the defendant really does not respond to what what is important is the way to defend and sat there this past year his and they just chilled that there were all these other people coming in coming out to change his clothes up there and then he was brought to you know sunday morning at some point to his parents home i mean he told it like the entire him talk to us tell us what happened perhaps you can get a better deal because there are other people out there talking whether their words are right there are a lot to say to when does it become just over the line to d he's living with his family he's living with his family why you know he's putting his family in danger just by living in their house so the police chief said should i am putting more protection on this parent's home and the response from the officer who worked at my mindset may not be a bad idea because he doesn't want more problems
that in their right to confront it's that they have a right to run witnesses that are arrayed against mr march or let me interrupt you very briefly i think we've lost in the shorts larcher your honor in this case there were medical records that were introduced by the government the supposedly forensic exam that was performed the day after like  for that the primary purpose of the nurses exam was to diagnose and treat the miners health how could that test how could those records be testimonial and the statements  there be testimonial given that the primary purpose of the nurse's discussion with her was to treat her health my position with the statements consistent with what statements and what is it that makes them testimonial here when again you've already agreed that the primary purpose of the nurses examination was to diagnose and treat defect that was given by here regarding when she was for their particular questions that the sexual so nurse posed that you felt made it into some type of a testimonial circumstance i'm wondering whether or not have the name of the fine i'm sorry the meaning of why isn't it directly relevant to the rd element of the offense namely that your client intended her to engage in prostitution doesn't here in illinois and said that during argument no really what it comes down to and the judge also acknowledged this in his remarks when he was putting together the during strikes and has really come down to whether there was a substantial the offense that the government has to prove and they don't have whether he was contesting it or not doesn't matter intent to prostitute is an element of something he was charged with and that's what the call was admitted to help the no law enforcement official participated in the interview in fact no law enforcement officer was present or otherwise involved in the medical examination in fact a case manager at the indiana department of child services was the person who transported to laney to the hospital for the examination i'd like to briefly address mr larcher its argument regarding the ongoing emergency existence of an ongoing emergency is simply one factor that informs the primary purpose analysis at the supreme court has stated in michigan versus bryant that there may be other so it's an aside from ongoing emergency where the in united states versus barker there are a four year old victim statements to a certified sexual assault nurse examiner were held to be non testimonial because they are the primary purpose of the conversations was to medically evaluate and treat the young girl
what i think that was based on your client's daughter's juvenile diabetes diagnosis can i ask what is the status of that motion and how do you believe that  and consulting other attorneys shortly after that and i don't think that the fact that she was alarmed big was based on a reason that wasn't reasonable because she doesn't read english strongest argument there is no retainer agreement and the record does not support her search terms of what she paid her attorney so these were probably files say the fact that she may have had help preparing the rather any political opinion she would have to she would have to proceed i would think on a particular social group based on her family because she says the only people that have received well who is very war they have not had she herself the only two people where the bishop who remains in line and his mother and they have not been harmed so her you know she would have to proceed i would imagine on a family group particular social because she has not shown that she has any particular social rather political opinion and you know she argues that she has she ha pursue you know her legal chase five or six or seven different attorneys i can't imagine that you know that is preventing her from you know filing a timely motion to  se or are you arguing that she didn't realize i'm not sure whether it makes a difference or what the distinction would be i think from the court's perspective she was pro se and from her understanding of the agreement she had with her
well what it is is that the charge was that he spent i think three hours trying to get mr sewell to give the testimony that he wanted him to give and they were concerned that that wa well i'm assuming that it is coercive or in at least intimate intimidate intimidating so are you are you affirmatively arguing that it still would be protected if it were intimidation or  not going that far it we would agree you have to lawfully assist the other individual ok so if we were to conclude that lawfully means not intimidate them then we would have to rule well the the finding of the aid the aid and mistreated judge was that mr baka didn't actually or reasonably believe that a battery occur if we find there substantial evidence in the record to support that aren't we done why not what's the evidence that it actually occurred well the medical records doesn't really what it what in the medical records do you point  never will he never he said he had a sore back but he never said that i was battered and he also didn't produce a picture despite being requested specifically by the a j to come up with that  have lacked substantial evidence to find that mr baka could not and did not see the door not hit him from where he was standing than whether or not he found out afterward ok in determining what the the evidence that you're relying on is large part mr bach is own testimony right what a large part of it is none of that is mr bach his own testimony could could they could a j reject at five percent because there was he didn't believe that mr baka was credible he if he makes a determination that mr baka is not credible for example mr baka who testified i am mediately interrupted the meeting and i said that you just battered him nobody in the meeting immediately after this slamming of the door happened said how dare you batter him this is outrageous when the only there were only three people left in the room at that time and two of them said baucus testimony isn't what happened well that's not what i'm asking but what i'm asking is about credibility we don't make credibility determination trial judges in an ale j s don't make them as to one point there was a finding the a l j determined that mr baka was wholly incredible ok but what do we do with the fact that the administrative judge was an ordered to that instruction even if even if you preserve your annoying theory to to conclude that the educator failed it veered is chiropractor reporting ongoing treatment for lumbar disc in joint degeneration is there anything in the medical records that says and this was caused but before you do there can i ask you a question about this this very point did isn't it true that the administrative judge never actually discussed mr baucus theory that he was  a finding and mr bucket made that fear presented that theory to the administrative judge how do we avoid remain ending so that the administrative judge can decide that in the st instance