MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
that the victim had very low and if not nonexistent credibility particularly with the evidence from or close family members to describe the wire to her closest relatives they did not believe anything she had to say and there was extensive testimony about her unreliability no question about  the witness being so god that they can't be believing that's what i'm trying to approach in this case perhaps not successfully if i may move on to the second issue  grow up we're taught and we learn about how to detect that somebody is telling the truth or somebody lying and we learn about these sort of things from things religious type teachings from the bible and that sort of thing for example the center of the in the other story in the bible we learn through experience to try to detect somebody lying and they look in the eye when they say something or the old story of the cookie crumbs by the cookie jar or that the kid stole some cookies or the cookie jar in this making another claim that never really brings the whole story into down and i think when you have a jury trial and you tell the jury to take all their life experiences and using common sense and what they hear in the courtroom that's why i think this part of the defense story that was so important here exactly what this conversation was what this apparent thought was or discussion was between mother and daughter about some sexual allegations  by the united states that this would be the defense and that's what we faced a trial and we faced a vigorous defense of the testimony of the wife of the defendants the mother and prior to or about at the same time that that was occurring the defendant was being interviewed by the criminal investigator and he did provide a description of the clothing and that he was there this is what the sexual act and with respect to the second issue which is the confrontation clause violation the e on and then they heard to the point before my objections were again that she had overheard a conversation carol myers between buffy and her mother but they didn't hear the substance of the conversation with  you have the time as i was saying the question to you as you look at them coming down there is they were interspersed i went back to the records trying to figure out why some of these were relevant questions and the only
bottom line is a jury could easily conclude that a plain old ordinary person was not an olympic athlete but easily step aside and in fact did step aside in this case which is also what happened in  basically right next to the driver's side window where ten afraid and for the last one he's a car and he's rooting through the rear passenger window there all you have to ask yourself i think all you're allowed to ask yourself is could a jury find that it is objectively unreasonable for this officer to shot and killed the driver when when he could have and in fact did just take a few  what your perspective on the wilkinson versus taurus is it seems to me that's a difficult case for you is it not i don't think so your honor and i think it was i've pointed in my supplemental brief of police in the middle of the dark of night when your headlights are not on and certainly someone and you are asleep and someone of your driver's window starts yelling whether or not you do or don't hear  concern that i have is the following if we take all the facts in favor of the plaintiff as we are required to do it would appear that the officer did have a pathway to so so the theoretical question i have is this when one person would make the officers act permissive all and the other version would not what at this point officer campbell is walking towards the suspect vehicle the evidence with respect to the acceleration of the will and the fact that it was under hard enough and celebration to break traction on the back tires can be photograph of the gravel area which shows take a plane to celebration factor and forty six miles an hour on that car can travel almost seventeen feet in the time that it takes the officer according to plaintiff's expert your view most accurately represents what happens way was or was not available because again the distance from the car and the time are only part of the picture wept because it had been raining and i do think the photo shows that there's no reason why this jury couldn't decide from this evidence officer example is lying through his teeth and that what he was trying to do was still kind of right and he just missed are they thank you
is supposed to reasonably be able to see this someone maybe respond and in the third person might have deadly shatter that kind of thing but i'm having a real hard time understanding how if the
normally in a social security case we get an l g decision that's seventy ten pages long in this case we're one that's forty five pages long and it's quite something you read some years ago that commissioner social security proposed to his representatives and one of the flows of representatives would be required to turn in all evidence whether favorable to their clients or unfair or to their clients following a comment period or the comments received from various parties including the with holding evidence from him and proceeded to ask me about that subject that resulted in the hearing being very short and we never got any testimony and it becomes obvious from reading the transcript of that in the decision  begin to recover this but i can get a few highlights almost right off the bat in the decision i think it starts with breach forty two of the transcript he criticizes me for submitting statements filled up by wi oh in this court's decision in the schneider king's it became possible for us to utilize witness testimony they helped prove that people meter recall the listings and therefore it became prudent practically no practice not to descriptions would claim it's unfortunate personal behavior choices she was not describing work really limitations that are a function of the medically determinable mental impairment later on the p t discusses the same thing with regard to another witness and on the next page as well because a claimant has a personality disorder these behaviors are girth and wally's except that the personality disorder he doesn't want to admit that that's why all this happens but he has accepted the statements as being truthful so one way to resolve this this case would be to say the judge neglected to connect the behavior with a personality disorder except that the statements as true the claimant needs to be criteria and the claimant wins and the case should be remanded for payment of benefits i might also point out that there are currently pending for comment new proposed rules by the commissioner i think the coming through closes later this week were where the theory of the he accepts basically what she said and that is the problem with the evidence that plaintiff relies on in this case most of the evidence that he relies on to support his contest  has not changed he goes through very detailed the objective evidence which of which there is minimal that completely contradicts her statements of disabling ankle and back pain never an allegation that there is not evidence that hasn't been collected by the l g a there is no evidence that her hearing was cut short it was a very long transcript of the hearing mr bowers permitted to question so although the decision may not have been the one that mr lowry wanted the l j afforded her every opportunity to present her ca
that if you're working in not doing substantial gainfully tragedy we will take that into consideration and we're going to put that into our mix so by lying they precluded as a wish to preclude any further investigation receiving benefits now the question again  indicated that not only has she been working at that business at the law community center but she ha gaijin your honor deals with that and also the record to try one twenty six nine through one twenty eight eleven sheep talk about the fact that a volunteer has no effect on income such that that massive form whatever their motives were are regardless but or volunteer is a material because as she says here if you volunteer it doesn't matter and i think that gets to your question your honor my question to you is why wouldn't we vacated either because it's moved now since there was no subject matter of your addiction or simply because one exist record as an obsessive managers addiction we should set aside any orders
convicted felon she's been convicted of a f testimony that witnesses somebody just suspicion and should be considered by you because you know the account now he says that he says he wasn't there right mistrial yes yes felt that was that was a been and he admits that it is conceivable that before would have just followed that there was involved in the crime or pages nine and ten of our brief we detailed the defense counsel proffer would you for would say in the prosecution's off he was involved in this if she had requested this i p i the only reason to request this i p i would have been simply hopping on the plain language of the i p i when you have witnesses who say or say whether it's true or false but they're saying that they hole by his folks whether or not they they planned it he was going shot i i don't know but it's it's it's pretty clear to to anybody who can takes a commonsense look at what happened here and saucers and
first christmas the first everything and i made a mistake this is not an expression of remorse who are causing harm to the victim this is simply a statement of  know it isn't a jail prison type setting in which the court makes comments on the record that that the video shows there after he has committed the
mopeds didn't come to the attention of law enforcement until the arrest of an individual named josh napper call and never call had been under investigation for a while law enforcement executed several warrants found numerous ounces of methamphetamine firearms guns the whole nine yards during an interrogation with and never call pulled out of this a phone number for someone he called omaha mexican lady which turned out to be elizabeth lopez and he called our but an important thing about this call is that well look at answered the phone she handed it off to another individual in this other individual is nicknamed the show and this was about a fifteen second phone call no specific references to drugs or to money in fact it's kind of questionable whether there was even any sort of drug jargon  the entire conversation was are you coming are you ready yeah i'll be there shortly that was that was it so a few hours later month first men had arranged in light of this information for what they term
underlying charge and when she was similar would you expect an attorney to have some kind of contact with this client over the course of the next six or seven months you would you would  or i'll be brief but what i'd like to say is all your questions today seem to lead me to the belief that this should've been on a post conviction that's where you figure out how much time is entirely too bad for you figure out what could afford to do it in this moment i'm willing to give him the money to do both conviction for you to decide that postcondition you have the fact you don't know what happened we have no way of knowing all we know is that some woman signed that pay for and that  the date of trial february sixth the defendant found the sign of bond was attorney for thirty five hundred dollars for a very receipt that's all we know and we can find out the facts going behind that unless we have both conviction here and where the evidence is brought for two months left he would have been out before he came to trial on this case if he had six months left he could have said to his attorney i don't want that guy money back because i think that we're going to get this case continue to move for a continuance with was denied and i'll be out on the and that's where john says in a p c because we don't have the facts and i argued that my original brief that a p c is a place where they should be raised then you know you have the fact you don't know why council did that and you're just speculating if you get a p c you can find
y assessed question the real questions before the court really are truthful he defended a service that the trial court acted arbitrarily in denying him probation insurance but i believe so i think the difference threshold question is was there jurisdiction for the court to hear the motion let alone the substance of it in the outcome but do you believe that the court had jurisdiction to hear th or positions that it was arbitrary or the court disregarded findings of evidence which were presented the findings which are unsupported by the record from the conduct inherent in the offense to be aggravating to your friends it misapplied statutory changes and essentially in the end made the statutory aggravating factor of the need to deter others essentially a trump card to all other factors there by effectively making the offense on probation  case here and i don't believe this is the can or doesn't make an argument to that effect if the state in fact i believe that the sentence that was addition was illegal and the trattoria to point refused to act in the state's only option would have been a frankly whether it is by section or by supreme court rule expressly says once a sentence is imposed it may not be increased obviously again the axiom that the sentence must be valid a law firm would allow the changing or i don't want i'm asking the court not inserting the threshold question before the determination can be made about what should happen in this case gets sent back the only way
us to ignore what they've determined for right or wrong the results are the impact of that i mean do we have i guess you're saying th
it even if it was admitted your honor we think it was used improperly up zero by way of witness testimony but certainly by way of the rebuttal argument that we've heard on and that's of course a and other circuits here's what we have is the explicit counseling this you're arguing i'm confused i have not seen a case where a new  trial is argued is based on multiple other issues that were not separately raised on appeal the gym clothes the poor body how are we supposed to do are you crazy now treating this as though it was it was the you know the whatever it is for with this sixty issue raised on appeal even though it wasn't so we can independently reverse on and sixty five determine that there were no green bowman does not identify any specific instances of the government telling the jury that the defendant was guilty because he had b we're reading he's arguing scheme that government has argued before it ends which was the admission mr jefferson's prior conviction he's arguing that including photos of other guns obvious talking by start of other guns or upper registers that never happened so your argument is that we have to we have to conclude explain how these how this was preserved and exactly what the error is in the government's offhand assertion that it wasn't preserved and that we're supposed to go dig through a bit of a three volume truck transfer we aren't going to do it unless you can tell and that is not a proper argument earlies there are not a properly supported arc of your arm i respectfully disagree we've raised a new end in our motion for new trial we raised with  same way that it hasn't been that been cited and i don't i don't accept the government's assertion that you didn't preserve the district court but but you haven't you didn't respond to that presented new trial motion argument except for what you argued this morning not arguing the we should just assume that the we have to inform the jury believe when they start and that's we have to we have to assume that the jury for everything and everything in the government's favor since you won and we still do we still know that you're in the river  court be improper argument to get there on the gun that wasn't made to him on the mat that explains the difference in the jury verdict i appreciate the standard i created i can't argue inconsistent verdicts
the sticking point i believe that the other side disagrees with is that on which the person is liable for the paying the property taxes that's the where the taxes that's where is the session so in the contract fifteen are paid to look june of two thousand and sixteen so if you have a one year lease you don't pay you don't even get the tax bill during the year that the lease as you're collecting money the taxes so it's always going to be an estimate of language more directly is actually what was in a statute it was already basically there but there isn't laws in there regarding we are your best growing us for doing this and this is not in evidence but i believe that the list these are things you may consider i think for the most part may be satisfied the number of the things for that would qualify as an issue of liability one thing they didn't satisfy which was on be have a lease and be liable for the property taxes and in turn you look at one hundred and seventy five each which gives you the idea that there is discretion which doesn't say they shall consider it doesn't say they may only consider the shall we consider these are things that may be you don't know any more than i know home world the swiss who are who could create go in and become legally liable to the county for a piece of real estate that lease holder does not own what i do just is liability it would be that the intent of the legislature will be a single family homes they would rather see single families live in those homes that have them turn into apartments or duplexes or whatever because it keeps the value of the neighborhood keep single band on the single family homes and if you makes the house more affordable st families that can't buy that's also the entire leslie that's why they get exemptions people to help make housing more affordable so i think for all those reasons
necessary educationally but school services include the full panoply students come home and talk to their parents about what your teacher said about interactions with other students about bullying about ineffective instruction about their always been that communications are provided extensive information is provided to this family and so those issues the issues of communication issues of informed advocacy which are essential parts of the i d e a although they're not  received hate to pay period has been that without this device the family cannot advocate for their son and that has been it was disputed there grossly and litigated vigorously case there were two findings and one question was whether or not the former owner of a company that by late it willfully violated sexual harassment policy and if he had stayed for three years and didn't willfully violate the policy he was going to get an extra seven million who don't have disabilities are able to talk to their parents about anything that happens in school then it is not he does not have an equal opportunity to enjoy the benefits that are before him a public school and take a five minute
now that showed the discovery to their clients but we talked to them about what it revealed was redder policy thought it was a bad idea to actually show them the discovery is this just picture trying to draw here i think that this or any other
it's so each year you're taking a little bit of money out of the bank to cover the shortfall well then surely that money runs out at some so right now just to keep up with the maintenance that's about was you having to take out
course it is your honor both of us have children and know that the st and foremost thing on his mind at that point was is what i'm doing getting me closer to getting back so much so he took three weeks but wh what he wants to do is get together with his lawyer and we all know that from all those statistics that having a lawyer makes a difference so why in light of all of that isn't in a rush there's not you know name was mentioned was actually representing the british humor on appeal
shays consistently there's a l j in particular but the others in san francisco office as well consistently reach jack all evidence submitted in support of it requested right all charged is clients in those cases in fact the record shows i don't believe that shows any raise he has charged having clients because that's not what his practices his practice is  nationalise they have no market rights tested by their ability to attract a clients because their practice does not include clients and they are not let me ask you about your yes about or rather i could stand to be corrected on that very small but if it's a whore and he says he's in the top twenty five percent that would make him number one wouldn't it yes it would it is certainly by far the most experienced and in my view the most expert longshore practitioner in area when we look for the top five percent are we are we looking only at the market in which mr rabbit with practices or do we get to look at a larger market well he does not and in fact i would say the top five percent and mr rubin was argue that not really address the point i would argue the top five percent of those who've been at this thing for more than thirty you first of all i think there is a notable contrast between the rights that as set forth in mr rabinowitz is the application have been awarded to him by this court by the bidding no contrary evidence no evidence for example that the rates surveyed in the urge and moronis surveys were not comparable work there is no evidence because she thinks thinks with no evidence to support it she thinks it is not comparable work again the central point is and we reduced all of these