MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
result could you spell your last name for me please  reserve any amount of time for rebuttal there is no right so i will let you know when your time is up we haven't your briefs so families research your argument for the points you wish to emphasise how much time would you let reserve and almost functionally forty minutes later defendant was poured over in the same car by officers and victims stolen items including a ring with his name on it a broken chain and cell phone were recovered during a traffic stop later th are reasonable as a whole now the question is not so much whether or not there's a reason it's a question for each individual person and if not you have to let them go even though you know there have been just stop five minutes ago so the question is whether or not the officers entire investigation after they determined that the signal can down for a dangerous weapon or deadly weapon anywhere in the vehicle in that back seat pocket whatever what was the occasion the person to place it in the pocket and then deny they were even there these are this is a reasonable suspicion of a robbery and you know one of the reasons you know it's reasonable is that exactly what came to mind in the officer's reverse mind upon viewing the circumstances  three they're paid to do is their job so if they find a reasonable suspicion of a robbery after lawfully to tenney somebody for a traffic stop and then having a lawful officer safety search they have a duty to move forward with the investigation and conduct a reasonable terry investigation which they did so
directly down the path that we we would request you go specifically relative to the valley of the lake and hills real estate we believe review and as a result he was terminated for cause as part of this government class we asked for a copy of the letter to see what actions were actually put in place we never received a letter from his employer or from the defendant palings regarding
that would be
more important then your points on prosecution history if there was something in the specification that was contrary to the prosecution history that would be true but there is nothing in this case is not cited anything in this case are claiming term had been an optical bean i would agree with you but a signal always is signaling something isn't it is indeed partying some information that the traffic signal telling me to stop and go home a flag signal on the hillside is communicating to me something in marsh code wouldn't a signal and using those terms interchangeably which indicates that the op the signal does not necessarily carry information and it does the same sort of thing actually the next call over time for team winds thirty five to thirty nine  response is that's true everything in the specification is information carrying which in which case we come back to circuit newman's point that under the bronze reasonable reading they couldn't construe this as broader than the information carrying signal because the overview here is that every every body chips it's carrying information when you're referring to it as number twenty three or as optical signal or the same number as optical beam it's already carrying the information that's what the whole specification shows so there is nothing there that is quite to distinguish it from the beamers period for racial signals exactly because that's all that shown here is mr laurie pointed out in connection with you know you are aware in that respect for his new way your point is strengthened by the fact that there is no clear evidence anywhere in the back  one thing to do it has to come up here is i think that this presentation very clear and we've raised all those examples you see all those examples and i think figure fifteen is particularly informative here because it is the only construction of it something broader here that isn't the correct construction it should applaud in the context of looking at the specification here and for certain you cannot  specification in trying to bootstrap an argument from looking at a piece of prior or what may have happened the prosecution history to somehow now illegal for the specification here so it's very clear
state police normally who need to read this to keep it in storage so it can't be contaminated number one and number two so it can be promptly frozen and stored in transfer easily problems there you describe in chain of custody in a mate you know take a different view of them going others would take but let's say that there are problems in the chain of custody based upon the way i look at the case law it seems that it goes more to the weight the absolutely reasonable trial strategy of not highlighting to this jury way before they begin their deliberations that his client had previously been convicted of murder and that his client had previously been accused of sexual assault wait before they're about to deliberate limited itself to the narrow set of facts in their case the defendant of the anderson was accused of attempted murder and monday and the instructions in that clarified between which bit dumb and so the jury in that case could have reasonably assumed that the attempted murder charge applied to the murder victim and thus convicted him on both but intercept is not control in this case because in its opinion this court specifically stated that andersen was limited to the narrow set of facts in that case in this case the jury was properly instructed they were instructed that the save my copy a defense conviction was and requires impeachment and they were instructed that the testimony of the prior sexual assault was just frequency evidence again the chances of them being confused with minimize also dependents prior sexual assault was only referred to as an incident and never even referred to as a conviction the jury was never even threatened but he was convicted of sexual assault there just received the and could possibly contaminate so that doesn't mean that that testing done in the past is not still generally accepted or should be subject to fraud just because the exams and masks includes it's a completely they really they use a whole bunch it takes some of it and extract the d n a from that portion they don't liquefy the entire thing it's a test tube and there's no mention here of her taking any intermediate steps and i think that's significant seen this is fun for us to listen thank you very much
hit with all of the information that h give or we have been a couple of minutes about the nature of an investigation and why the information is needed and then have returned to the grand jury or to the investigator you'll be returned to people who knew what it was what it was for and  having discussed them previously would be a bunch of meaningless peeper so i don't know that the return is the issue as much as the nature of the authorization and demonstration of some form of prejudice when you do you would be the argument county and state can issue orders for people to do things doesn't mean that it's proper ok to make a fallacy who's doing the right thing absolutely by the way i don't think there's any question or bear faith any question right illusory concept because the grand jury the investigators and the state's attorney worked in such close concert the reasons i think lying on their president in particular valium to a
conviction and remain in the case for the proceedings it's probably because this issue was not raised and needs to be presented at a trial second the statute despite the fact that the charlton instrument was incorrectly stated as said they were in the second appeal this court did not address the ineffective assistance of counsel claim that was raised that yonder reasonable doubt that's the box in the box when it comes down to it you have here a sexual assault took place over the course of an hour as testified by the complainant p b there was was putting the sixteen year old out as somebody who was actually a distance it will change in the sense that this evidence and also the idea that they said that she confused with moisture or power or so forth but so what i mean they didn't but but the defense argument is doesn't matter what she can view as well as there was no semen so what would he know what look i'm trying to make the link between that and whether or not the she isn't somebody who has no right here with the consistency of whether present or not she would know what it is and in the sense she would be fabricating a story it to the jury as to what happened well didn't they already have that actually in the city or not is that what does that have to do with whether she's fabricating this story i mean i suppose virgins can make up a story that was sexually experienced woman and made up stories  completely oblivious to what had occurred to her and therefore there's no reason why there's no evidence of d n a or reason now because she doesn't know well this this and she said the s presumption that children are sexually innocence i understand in that case is a twelve year old yet the sixteen year old i understand four years is different and there's a difference but i think that presumption still exists and this knowledge that aren't should have been presented to the jury was wellness and appropriate and there was error not at least making the argument that it should have been allowed by the counsel at the director feel
is there a difference between him not following the coroner statute or violating the statute and whether or not he's immune from out in the statute you're feeling i'm saying i mean i mean the plaintiff here might have an argument but what we have here is a case that the court consider all the facts and by fair to the point and the facts and i think that it's quite clear that i want to emphasize the you know it's not just regarding the stunning revelation it's not just decided to do it he has some valid information and it was some concern and the thing about it is a grand mystery it turned out that there was look at the record it was kind of we had the argument on a motion to dismiss right before the border we had a discussion as we just came to say with this you know we had this thought certainly
doubt that mr thomas had act committed the offense murder specifically there was no i'm interested witness who can identify who the shooter was also there was a high description given by to thomas the judge sentenced him to sixty years plus life i think it's worth noting that six years is the maximum sentence for the murder and life is also the maximum  record does indicate that the judge in this case was instituting a policy of i've been posing life sentences for the fact of life sentences already murder cases a life sentence it's going to be  you are people with a gun because if the judge had said that here that that's not what we have in this case here we do have the judge saying basically the same thing to these two different two different defendants here saying that if you take a life if you pull the so the word did not use this discretion here the the state would suggest that the word is merely saying you know these these are the consequences of your action if you kill somebody there's going to be consequences and that that's sentence however when even looking at a sentence that is within the permissible range and if you've got something in the record that indicates that the judge considered either an improper factor or the judge is implementing some sort of personal the circumstances don't warrant eight the absolute maximum of sort of  to when he was eleven years old in the middle are right he's committed drug offenses federal gun fences and two months after he shot and killed purse johnson he was located in kroger parking lot bedtime reading so you know i don't know where this argument defacto life really helps push the defense argument here and i would also point out would ever is in that range is discretionary but must impose the and that's the legislature's policy not the judges and his father is the judges predisposition to impose life as i said he doesn't impose like in every case he didn't myspace and his stink meds that if you're man enough to hold the trigger you're man enough to do life that is a catch phrase that means nothing other than you know misusing a rat if you can't do the time don't do crime what's the difference that is  should be vacated but i didn't find in the record in the camargue records where the order is did you look at the
engineers and they decided well we really can't do that you basically have to demolish all of this you can just rebuild for an attachment to those western units that work that badly damaged so the bottom line  of the candle being demolished it's the entire economy of being demolished it's an integrated structure obviously there's a roof but it's walls and there's a foundation but there's also the interior portion so the city to property coverage for the condo association we talked about the earlier how there was some degree of overlap into the individual units and that's why we all state policy which is involved in this particular lost health coverage for the updated building codes from so we do the type of public policy sort of station to a violation argument that mr barry was mentioning because they have more of the court is this verse specific and there's those cases are very clear
but he didn't interrogate him on the facts of the case were through every fact kept asking the guy what do you want to talk about ask me questions the fact that he happens to be good doesn't make it illegal  these words of the st fifteen minutes if forty minutes later the guy says yeah you're right it did somehow that now need gates everything transpires here in fact what we've got is that if that statement the defendant doesn't take the ba well as just as charming does if you're making this argument regarding totality of the circumstances of the interview in the mind becomes an interrogation i get that what your best case at what point can you pinpoint was the time in which the investigator should have rerun guys this defendant or ask you any additional questions degree sudden intense passion you're saying if you just don't take into account the fact that sixteen stab wounds to the chest in the neck could be a problem then you're good you something about actually committing the offense if he sounds like he's feeling like he might want to talk about your fans work or what point do we tell the police ok now you have to stop slaughter the admission of the confession
that was the scene perpetrator in convincing her to rewrite the contract and then using five hundred thousand dollars worth of thanks to the giant me that i was forced to pay on time for the two thousand and eighteen that's the st crime to have that investigated also applying the law to the fact is that you can actually function and i need you to also answer or not answer that question with will bring up another matter ok you cannot say no has a right to resort to the laws of this country for remedy of the law was broken so why have a right to a remedy i could not be deprived that another case also make in the government opening brief the district court properly dismissed the complaint and denied me to a man unless the court has any question the government respectfully request that the district court's orders be affirmed complaint is dismissed for lack of article three standing dismissal must be without prejudice john vs whole foods market group yes your honor here i think the reason citizens have no standing to challenge the government's prosecutorial decision and also given the anti filing injunction that was affirmed by this court which covers any claims relating to the air rights litigation isn't the basis for ready the court's futility finding need to amend would would not have been there would there would be no way to amend the complaint to cure the standing deficiencies that the district court futility or anything of that sort there's so so it's it's it's it's it's it's technical but it's it's true once there's no standing then there's no jurisdiction and the court can't do anything after we hear the arguments we cannot reach a decision until the three of us confer privately and then we can reach a decision only then can we reach a decision you understand
an allegation of interest was that there would be evidence that there was nonconsensual sex  including statutes of limitations there is no dispute here that whichever way this case of looked at the original petition is outside the session limitations for each proceeding and him subsequently had clarity you have been set found that would not have pursued it so i have to assume when they say it was his subjective belief of the facts that in fact there was nothing in the three years and that's what they were attempting to litigate but because they claimed did not render the judgment boiled it did not get them past the stage limitations and our position here is it nothing that is presented whether court's primarily action two is the first because a trial points judgment was correct if this court chooses to take a different route depending on the nature of the route we might object in going to the supreme court defendant was represented by counsel and nobody caught the mistake until four years later  you know the strange thing about this case generally is this is my case in currently in the last month where i first heard about three years of life on a sun and they're all just sort of in ministry of ramadi where these can be sought but here again there has been never any attempt to evade the fact that a mistake was made this is also my second case in a week because we're here more often than we used to be i have no choice but to admit that there was a mistake however i also have to admit the legislature has the right to impose punishments in of the punishment was not challenged in direct appeal nor in a timely timely claire oh yeah chose to include the pro se claim in the event of filing as if there was no factual basis for the claim it should have been withdrawn that would have been the ethical thing for appointed counsel to do not consecutive foreign hands in this case there's nothing wrong with the factual basis the problem is
with federal government created a special visa program the j one visa to allow young eighteen to twenty six visitors to come to this country for one year be incorporated into local families and return to here no case but that's my understanding so if that's the case what do you make of the fact that there is an absence of any evidence that any one of those state memories are as has ever been attempted to be enforced with states have higher minimum wages than the federal government there's never been asked for it until here and then we were recently california case now i am counsel there you have questions i'll be glad to answer them preemption she could change your mind but that's where it sits right now we're still at the tail end of discovery and the decertification of the class period so we're at least a few months out from any trial in
second better constrain excessive leverage
the regulations i think it's important to first look at the federal law and follow which is the federal aviation administration authorization act which has had forty nine you would see forty five the one that concerns federal authority minimum amounts of financial responsibility relating to insurance requirements third the authority of the state to an act in and force that regulation or other pretty provisional relating to a for hire motor vehicle two it matters in that whether or not the state of securing city the intent of the congress which is to regulate the particular regulation looking at which is founded starting in its thirty nine and the forty four i should say law is the states rules which would have to be done and i don't believe you unfortunately is that you know who they start with an exception they may be great there's no doubt about it i understand your point about stranded motorists and there i think the key problem we have with the state's regulatory scheme is as with allen which you pointed out is everything relates to economics everything really nice you want signs records the fact you have to have somebody there
i want to let you know the justice here is also on this case he will listen to the chief of the argument but he's not able to be present with us today now would you each beginning with the appellant please stay and let us know your name criteria is the motion has to be crafted by morass the judge has ruled on a substantial issue prior to the motion having been present so if you consider a motion to  a nd issue is the statute of limitations g after receiving the notice the bank should have done something in twenty days the bank did not do anything in twenty days that failure by the have its proceeds think the the remedy is that their trial court could offer you you know given the fact that the property is already been so what's the what's the remedy what  the same exchange or funds except this is in a more traditional recession the bank would already have its funds defendants would basically have already performed a return to bribe the bank hester crocker which is there dismissing it because the good the law requires him to prosecute your case after you file if you don't then he gets dismissed so the judge will not happen in practical terms any opportunity to kno when you bring a motion to dismiss for want of prosecution the court the grants that are not based on looking at the court's record to see what if anything the party did after the i think that's what usually happens and we agree on what that case is about it's i'm just trying to see where he would read that a motion to dismiss for want prosecution is a technical motion that does not go to the substance of the kids do you agree with that i district recognizes the testing the waters doctor and the purpose of that rule which brings me to the question if the judge doesn't know the substance of the complaint how can that be construed as x in the waters if  seeing how they would react to their proposed claims and then if if that reaction is negative they're furious and they'll go shop for another judge and i think that's what happened here we have an adverse ruling against th it and then after that point the defendants decided to shop for another judge who might be more favorable and i will let you get to the nd issue too but just quickly there's no transcript either a judge walked this is thinking in denying this motion we don't know why it would be very strange to me if the if he had heads you already filed a lawsuit or had a judicial terminations of whether the underlying question or rather the other bage  somebody objects and the motion is the if there's a life person on the other side or a life case it isn't going to be dismissed for want of press occasion but i think there is a difference between motions thereafter which i think is indications that it's not considered to be on the merits and if it's not on the merits then it's not substantially back to the statute of limitations heeler claims opportunity was brought for the nd hearing before judge loftus once everybody knew she was there there was nothing here trying to be deceptive they said one gains no tell sting of the waters in this fashion by no