MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
infer from the state's statement the player agreeing with the recommendations of general term probation and the additional requirements of the sex offender patient and  but it her earlier life we were trial judges and i'm not sure what numbers are but i think pretty sure we're free decades worth of trial courts or so that's where our sympathies lie you see i don't see the difference between what you are saying the example i think is good that no matter how specific we get it under your theory it will never be specific enough because there will always be some possibility that we can put together a set of facts that will fall outside that script so in other words we can never impose these conditions because we'll never be able to google it down to a point for you  every single circumstance within the written order itself outside the discretion of the probation department the state or your court whether those conditions can be
and we had some good memories in any event i represented a risk insurance company and the basis of this appeal stems from the fact that a risk insurance company's lawyer mr cur was disqualified from up presenting a risk insurance company in this lawsuit and then left and a risk insurance company basically without a lawyer to respond to the twelve t saying that by disqualified mr kernan did tell you the process was tainted so that they were not able to adequately respond to the twelve to six motion to dismiss judge i mean you're talking about a case where you had the richardson merrill case and talks about disqualification in a final order it's reviewable if it taints the entire proceeding and that's our position that the disqualification order which we to frame the response to the motion and we get into the reasons why what happened was why a risk insurance company was unable to respond they didn't have a lawyer to respond until mr hit and the twelve the six motion until they got all the counsel i don't know judge i think that what happened was when counsel got this mr hits he got involved four he was able to scramble to put in an the st amended complaint in front of judge baxter there was a motion mate when the complaint judge baxter granted the motion and then when the nd amended complaint was attempted judge lo that she said disqualify the lawyer for in gauging in the business of insurance in violation of section one thousand and thirty three of the of the criminal law then he's entitled to a hearing under one thousand and thirty four which nobody asks for and that was where i think due process and fairness came in there was no good hearing to determine whether he actually violated the federal criminal statute that there's a procedure to follow to say you want to still viable based the communications with judge suttee it is now he's out right right now he's out yes no i guess my question it's kind of i don't know if you want to put in terms of prejudice but you know you don't want your contesting even assuming we can get there which seems doubtful to me for all the reasons your lawyer has been explaining but even assuming we could you know if this thing had gone on for an extra month in the district court i mean he was disbarred so you know the complaint that well he you know this should have been dismissed he shouldn't have been disqualified he was going to get disqualified within a month anyway so i guess i'm i'm just not seeing the bottom line here how anything in any universe could have been different well i think that i think the real victim here is a risk insurance company not having the ability not only to have the lawyer but remember when he was disqualified he was disqualified with the understanding that he wasn't even supposed to communicate with any other lawyer to give any information he was not to take any were all in the litigation whatsoever so that was very difficult for for the
was that there was a settlement agreement between the parties and as part of that agreement now if there was a not a spirit because the famous case appeared on a a little television station in st louis discussing from the questions that i may answer your o as a point on appeal in this opening brief and it didn't file a one ninety one the affidavit and the trial court level i made never claimed to judge machine that it didn't have a chance to do discovery that for the first time in this litigation that the court of appeals bed did have a chance to to discovery that's just not accurate never took advantage of the procedure that is in place under one ninety one b to ask me that these financial documents are not presently in the record well there is no way the documents can be in the record other than physically they are not there describes these documents it describes ready claims is in these documents and then at some point it alludes to and it's sort of strange i've never seen this before  eventually try to come up with saying there is you know some change view of the company because of let me ending murphy sat on television not identifying the company by the way am i the u s said it wasn't aware of any such
and go back and change the final order of the poor that's why protect the intervene in this case and from the record in its entirety thank you proper proceeding is not the diligent hour to attempting to be calm i'm just being rich by the substantial proceedings that have taken place
with numerous references to irrelevant and highly prejudicial footage of the interrogation videos now the state has conceded been mr bell's trial counsel acted on reasonably infalling to suppress those are relevant portions of the interrogation trial court told the jury these videos are important to the courtroom the journey being were important evidence the court told the jury to focus on the videos twice the court said take notes three times the court told the jury to pay don't think this record overwhelming reestablishing ineffective assistance it would be raised to judicial economy to remain for a claim to inquiry to see what else council might have failed to do i think the records clear here that we have ineffective assistance just based on no rational person would find him guilty of the offense but if we make the finding that the evidence was not close do you think when you search the ability of the trial curd to that's just exactly what patrick get to know all can be considered patrick cannot be considered to be a while simply because he's trying to to support a family member absolutely establish ineffective assistance occurred here however we felt that if this court believe differently will it was complaints that mr bell wanted to make on and to get to flesh out for the record were the things that as to whether that was because of the position morsi was in or because he was unconscious and this really came down to credibility contest between patrick turner who from the moment he talked to police began mind on and mr bell  that mr bell position on morrison to get laid out with the board on as if this were some sort of pre planned event before mr bell into the house however mr bell's statement in context establishes he was moving like that and i'm moving around because i'm going back towards the truck my mind thoughts were to get back to me and will leave the bike and never once did i think that anyone was going to lay him out with a club so when you put that whole quote in cont about positioning him it's clear he didn't think he was really positioning him to be struck with this we were on as for the green light comment in the mission the use of words by mr bell and the state seems to con that language a trial and they're doing it here on appeal the green light that mr bell gave to travis to hit morrison with the board was i content it was nothing more than i contact and he insisted on that during the interrogation and at trial he gave him a look
stated that way correct there does seem to be something consistency ending in opinion between being right on finding which appears to be independent on the waiver question appropriate but just for sake of argument any kind of agreement here but not invent entry of judgment we just simply have a situation where there was a finding and i would disagree with that obviously there's a question of fact about the affirmative defenses of waiver abandon
probation the court barely mentions on the underlying offense the court mentioned mentions it in passing when he's talking about mr alexander's criminal record on the court is discussing the fact that mr alexander statements by mr alexander were certainly something that the court was allowed to consider i mean clearly stating to record i don't want to complete probation i'm not saying that the court was wrong to consider the fact that he violated probation the reasons why he violated probation and his own attitude towards probation my argument is really that out the court was upset about this the court failed to consider the underlying trends and decided to sentence mr alexander to an clearly upset about mr alexander's attitude during an attitude towards permission and it was really focused almost entirely on mr alexander's failure to complete taking care of his child and this was part of the reason why he was i mean able to complete probation on the court also acknowledged that mr alexander had a tough childhood and that he had expressed during his sentencing hearing pattern of being irresponsible but i don't think that there's necessarily warrants such a steep increase i mean he went from thirty months of probation to four years to an extended period of four years and i mean there's not really any mention if you didn't want to consider it on your own discretion that you would look at the abuse of discretion and if you're going to look at an abuse of discretion here you have the fact it is in the sentencing range which is one to six years for the court did explain why he was giving for he said partly because the defendant had already had a three year sentence in the department of corrections felt that that should be considered i think there also the order of protection so we know that there is more of a detail where is a very key if the judge has made this conduct is horrendous this conduct is terrible and what he was talking about was the conduct of that which they did treat as a felony in two thousand and fourteen and i would argue that that's just a passing reference and with respect to the states are unique it's basically the same the state also focused almost entirely on the violation of probation  regious than the sentencing in part is because in varies the conduct that the poor was upset about and that made the court feel that he needed a much harsher sentence was that he was real trending in a very similar type of
before he found the gun that's correct and that therefore when he was in possession of the gun he had not been a man who was running up and down the street with it with up and running up and down the street running into people's homes waving  it that he knows that the barrel length is less than eighteen inches and that's the same issue whether he was the one running up and down the street or not well but if someone is running up against rick reasonably they have the gun in their possession long enough to know council has spent five weeks trying to locate managed to get a cell phone number for the witness who of course had had at this point moved out of town moved to colorado made numerous phone calls to  minutes before the motion was you know the defense counsel had been in touch at that point with the witness and the witness certainly clear that she would be able to come to court but she had just started a training program and it would be difficult for her one to get out consumed alcohol once every couple months tried marijuana once how many seventeen many years ago and then he last month alcohol about two years prior to this recently nothing in the records indicate that substance of treatment was purpose of determining whether the parties were ready for trial and during that status conference the district court asked the parties if they were ready to proceed and the defense answered yes it was really proceed to proceed if the court takes police representations defense counsel and by that time defense counsel really knew that there was this witness out there and that they were having difficulty finding the witness and at that time the defense counsel and defendant had requested a continuance but they said nothing and and the only other witness he referred to was his girlfriend and she doesn't think so by your comment you are implying that she was out there she was either unwilling or he couldn't bring her to court and i did not
issue a verdict that is consistent with the weight of the evidence and that's the focus of our case in fact if you look at the record evidence which is laid out in our brief but we need to yeah this was at the result a starting point for point six million dollars right if the state in the process of mit's audit came up with something and it was different that's not something that tax matrix would be entitled to argue for the best catholic tax makers in fact it was not the body that said this upon our accepting your premise that as to the word you used catalyst that by merely making the phone call they were entitled to whatever happened next position here today is as soon as they made their first phone call and say we think there are problems with this any reduction that occurred is attributable to tax me tricks and they get the benefit of it on the contingency bas with that's an extraordinary argument move i say that's a kind of a tough road to hold when you're on with us and get on the stand and contradict that legal position by saying if we didn't bring it to the attention of the authorities we would be entitled do any work on it and we did not make a phone call and then the next day but one phone calls enough in your view wonderful calls enough performance or we should we should look at that again school one point three million that's the be put in a position to be how to be making it to be required to make a rule fifty  sufficiency of the evidence charge she's not arguing that the jury looked at all the evidence we waited on properly or gave credit to more than the other as far as the taxpayers is concerned once that liability finally came down the answer should have fallen out of then about a month and a half later dropped again to one point eight testimony came out in a trial but it was between that second and third iteration that miss meyers began her line by line analysis it was just there was some general talk about pulling out certain capital items  concern is this how it was used in closing by my colleague on the right go to phase it was referred to substantively at that point that by that point that does not is true bill and we weren't because i'm very interested in your answer this question at what point are you saying there was a waiver are you saying that they don't have a position to make here because when you said let's publish it to the jury at that point they should have stood up and said no no the jury can never see that because it's only for a pietschmann mean is that your legal position how do you substantive evidence when it comes to closing and your position now mr zapruder i'm trying to figure out what the place is in the record where you think that's a waiver the only place there could be a waiver your honor is after is a time of publishing all right after that at that
disposition shell
mean only address the procedural issue it is not just with the authority to reverse a procedural defect and then issue a decision on the merits of the petition which would necessarily entail fact finding it would extend beyond the judgment was not required to accept this group of service because there is no proof of service to ship and not avail himself of the mailbox rule pursuant to will twelve before the certification actually s that he's filing this thing just petition right yes and your argument is that the proof of service was inadequate because there was a notary piece that was in
two issues in today's case first that the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that mr williams did not act in self defense and second that the trial court error when it shackled mr williams without first determining that restraints were necessary and actually could be starting with this second issue and then time permitting on the bond to the reasonable doubt argument your honour's it's clear in this case that mr williams was shackle without a blues hearing defense counsel asked for mr williams handcuffs and shackles to be removed and the trial court responded handcuffs will be removed shackles will remain on that say there is absolutely no one else isn't overwhelming this was a self defense case it centered on two witnesses mr williams mr that some who is the complaining they were the only two witnesses that testified that were actually in the front of the car and that and she stabs him in self defense this was a closely balance case it was a credibility contests at a minimum it was a credibility contest and their competing versions make this a closely balance case but actually looking at the broader picture the objective facts actually tipped the balance in favor of mr williams mr williams has never denied that he s the complainant from the beginning he has maintained he acted in self defense this is what he told the police when he called them after they showed up this is what he told the detectives when they interviewed him and this is what he testif for mr williams after he rolled out of the car he drove off in a car that wasn't his second the police mr williams was the one who contacted who asked for the police to be contacted mr williams was the one who actually directed the police the driver's seat and try to grab the steering wheel the blood in the car is up near the steering wheel the only blood in the car corroborates mr williams of self defense and again the only evidence the state presenting it to this self defense claim was the improbable testimony of the complain through to the state it's not supported by the evidence in this case as cites the state fail to meet their burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that mr williams did not act in self defense and about that too we have the defendant here who is facing prison sentence perhaps he has a reason to lie and again if you look at the fair tax the depend again from the beginning that he acted in self defense this is what he told the cops and mission and it's what he told the detective is furthermore comes also mention that illinois the remedy for a due process i lesion such as this is to send it back for a new trial there's absolutely nothing on this record nothing at all to suggest
to the accident are absolutely correct sure had been treated for depression during probably you know high she had a very clear history and was in the records of treatment for depression evidence whatsoever that she had ever had anything even approaching a panic attack prior to their work injury aug thirtieth two thousand and four in fact in the record if you look at the october twenty eighth two around that same time there's no evidence that either of those events were responsible for causing any problems but even if they were let's say hypothetically responsible for increasing the attacks in relation to the birth of her daughter in may two thousand by the words in relation to those are not in the record those are not in the medical records arbitrator say they said they were there but they're phone pointed out that is an indication of the beginning of this smell process which as he described it was an undoing like ripping of a picture of a thread from about that's that's correct that's what it is and she described that this is part of the problem and also i think just do as i understand it from what dr from a specified difficulty being around people are being around a lot of people so that there is no i don't think there's any dispute that that she does have that condition panic attacks that are phobia and that this also in turn aggravated her press to go on stuff or her suffering from the panic attacks negroponte and if the if the thing is the question should have been explained away it's not just responsibility to bring that up on cross examination but they were there what we're dealing with your is a manifestly question particularly with regard to the credibility of the witnesses to the medical witnesses who are involved one of the things that i find disturbing is that from thought then he doesn't assign any particular significance to either the breakup with the father of her children or the difficult pregnancy and her death of a child in birth and i think that's very significant i mean why is it not why does the the finger issue not mention but he others are there since it's silent on the finger issues the injury from work is just very significant lifton well objected to the whole procedure of the deposition was pfeiffer created because dr stillings refuse i think improper herself to turn over the results of testing that he did and that was part of his opinion ok that was wrong i'm not making any arguments about whether that deposition should have been given any credibility i can't really argue that but you are a traitor specifically stated i get no credibility
not worth being your friend i'm tired of being bullied so what you're just going to leave me best friends all over i should get to class i'm sorry later it do you appreciate yourself do you like the skin you're in how can you have a relationship with one of the relationship with yourself is an ok i have a good relationship myself because i'm happy with th i'm very lucky to have a family who supports me appreciates me and like someone a lot love is being with someone you care about love to me is extremely subjective there's a lot of different kinds of love there's love for yourself there's love for your friends or family members  there's romantic love like not being able be without that person like if you lose them it's like doing about half of yourself really love is a connection between two people i don't know a teenager i don't know but really you're with the person who you have an emotional bond with and you find ways to express that emotional bond directory daylight i guess love is when two people have mutual feelings for each other and they sha those feelings love is something that can change over time but it's also something that you can rely on being there harry described it is not something to describe but something  you can meet ups and maybe at the park tomorrow say like two o'clock because i look forward to seeing  i am making my movie it's like a music video it's pretty much about letting go it's about online dating and not expecting what you get it's about bowling it's called the boy and right now i'm just
park and so you're saying that something like the video which shows her demeanor towards the end of the altercation you're saying that that's not relevant right different from here and in addition to that although it was redacted into a minute or so video it was still prejudicial and doesn't mean that the prejudice is completely  trade no he testified that she was distraught but that's not the same is crying in regards to the proper bottle argument it was not an isolated remark it was a theme and in light of the earlier attacks and the language she used the prosecutor said he went on with that improper theme well did he say that more than once it was not that specific statement no good he's only said one time yes well isn't it exactly what the prosecutor supposed to be doing is to attack the defense case an example of that other than the one statement we've been talking on the prosecutor when when he was setting up his rebuttal he consistently said maybe without saying defense counsel outright that the defendant is misrepresenting or lying but it's the personal attack on counsel because defense counsel doesn't believe that's why