MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
go but again you're talking about burden of proof we're talking about evidence competent evidence that would support the giving of instruction evidence here and of medical malpractise case there would then would the council i just want to and want to just run this through in my mind what happens at trial what happened in this trial and how it is that the jurors are capable of reaching a conclusion that the conduct of barnes was the sole proximate cause and to be able to do this without the assistance of medical testimony expert medical testimony of now or are you saying deduction concluding of from various facts not of opinion testimony but various facts that have been testified to that an individual or entities conduct was the proximate sole proximate cause of whereas if we were talking about say the point of having to prove his or her case medical testimony would be required in order to establish jury to determine that there are some other set of circumstances is in fact the sole proximate cause as opposed to a proximate cause they've heard all of his medical testimony throughout the trial saying this cause of this is possible that now you're saying that the jury is supposed to take this longer of the cause that they're being formed and somehow attribute it to someone other than the defendant it doesn't have to be an person that's what you're saying is sufficient for a so proximate cause on for so proximate cause instruction my question is how was the jury supposed to do that without negatives he indicated that it could that he had perforated the pancreatic before in his procedures and that can occur in the absence of negatives and i asked about the context in which that question was asked was it in the context of the r c p and i believe mr unwrap indicated that it was is there a distinction an important distinction i don't know the twain whether or not the attempt is being made for the common b evidence warranted given in i'm not going to be able to pick out of a clear cut example of there but it would seem that there are any number of occasions where it should be obvious based on the evidence presented that of an instruction was permissible but the evidence supported the giving of an instruction it wasn't given and that that then would be fair simply because no here in the testimony at trial was there more than this one question asked of dr clark or any other expert witness at trial that would have when you're simply trying to get into the common bile duct just that perforation is that normally not occur unless there is no collisions answer for us is that the extent of the evidence supporting the
maximum in that case the sentence was unlawful as an exceeding them statutory maximum from the date it was issued not because of some subsequent opinion i mean clearly this this case is in excess of the maximum that he would receive today now at the time that sentence is imposed it was not in excess but different the guy is still to sear been fifteen years how much of it was more than he would have served other ones what difference does it make that the summit's was legal at the time that it was imposed if any argument from the government that it is not a crime of violence be it can be done in secret under florida statute and in secret there's a case from called robinson from the florida statute he's talking it's talked about some his other cases we have also as part of the same kidnapping armed robbery the attempted robbery and armed robbery quite honestly we're dressed   nd eighty three it's not to notice seven cases says that there has been force that use what is important though in robinson and what the supreme court skipped over is that robin states that we need to get back to the scheme that we had before eighty three it's the same year the mr barnes was arrested for the armed robbery kidnapping cases before him and in that case it said mere snatching from the hand of someone was enough force to rob someone so that's the scheme to mr barnes whether the bottom line is understood under the barn's arm robbery a robbery conviction nineteen eighty four based on florida law the simple robbery of snatching money out of hands without force please the court in this particular case the facts show that this particular defendant barmes did qualify had the three qualifying felony predicates to qualify for application of the aca as such th affirm the district court's sentence without even relying on the waiver that's asserted by the government in response to the layout case that the court had rather meet you before you leave so to go on the s in this particular case there is no such carve out the only exception to the appellate waiver deals with his right to challenge ineffective assistance of so in this particular case the court could also  i would just point out to the court as well that as we had mentioned before borns does concede precursors as a qualifying predicate they also acknowledge that the attempted robbery at page forty seven no eighteen of their crumb as to their arguments concerning the armed robbery or aggravated that battery they rely on the same use of force type argument that this court has gone back and and as we've seen own also in our brief in a do to the rule twenty eight jail letter the armed robbery and aggravated battery are clearly acknowledged as crimes of violence in florida in the state and also in the th circuit therefore judge brown what had all of this available to him and properly found akhet did apply in sentence the man to the statutory minimum fifteen but did not do anything to exceed the maximum and
how you know and i don't think there is anything wrong with that i mean i have seen a multitude of cases where on reviewing courts have said you know we're remaining this for a new trial but for  evidence was sufficient for the defendant guilty therefore there is jeopardy if they do that and if it is a matter of course my viewpoint on this reasonable doubt isn't is that's why the defendant raised it is insufficient i don't think it's that mr mcnamara gave i just simply do not see where this evidence was insufficient on the element of armed robbery now we don't know what's going to happen do know that the fact that there are some mandatory sentencing going on in this case that has to be applied is not any sufficient reason for this court to find that the evidence was insufficient to prove the defendant's guilt if they had any questions on any of the other issues
inside very shortly to see this display would like to now introduce mr paul hastings sisters in an older brother who was killed in one of the battle but i forget now which one and then he had a younger brother and that's who  this was so during the civil war then this all happened yeah so then i was old thrilled to say well i had a big deal to me but it's nice to know or have an teach him yet or battle hymn of the other how many other battles that they had famous battles and tatum's big one will before you do the display then you read up on the history of it yeah well yeah i've always had mo place i heated them up enough that i could i could put as a say and then these are men on this the structures they came that way and then i made the cut the legs off the stands  were actually men who worked a cannon who had a long rod in your hand so i cut the base off and got the rod off and laid him on the stretcher s commanding officers were wounded so he rode up and down the lines getting these men into order to help fill up the holes in the line and years after man wrote conserve wrote the paper didn't get killed but two months later he was killed in cold harbor but he has sent all the description of the battle home to his brother and read a report in the drawer and it wasn't brought out int picture all the pictures i took were after the battle they were taking pictures not sure is it dead there was no actually brought up a picture and one guy did draw a sketch but it was very small  build yeah most of that hole if they would if we could do it right now you just take about eighty percent of all the soldiers on this side and lay them down because that's who didn't make in that was the union  yeah what really did the damage in this particular battle is the to laurie they just murders and they came in waves three four five six foot deep and maybe a hundred feet long and  quarter long and a mile up this way and that the covered covered the whole field and they were shooting up into nothing never miss them and then when they come up on the ground level you can still see show they could just mowed em gun but it had a put together in the revolutionary war eighteen twelve vietnam world war one two three all the more men were killed in that war and more in four years and all our battles put  a war they believe it or not because they only had one change of uniform a lot of these men here here in union had these uniforms on and it was ninety degrees and charged up that hill and all that stuff know when they study about it and everything you've got it right in front of you with just wonderful it's but the only thing you know the artist draw pictures of them but they haven't played like this and i have pictures in there of a famous artist
consideration that it makes it it makes it better looking for specific points in the joint and next that address that and then we believe that at a reasonable jury could in fact find that this was a part that uniform plating and the bottom line is there was a meaning the purpose of the meeting the express purpose of the meeting was to find the most economical design for a top hinge for testimony it was the best design the most durable the longest lived the most economical the strongest this adds up to me once you find what's really good you generally don't go much further you had a meeting you had a purpose for the meeting the purpose for the meeting was satisfied and you went then with that handshake i mean there was no there was no mention of ornamentation in the end meaning meeting there was no purposeful except those two pieces exactly the same the only difference the only difference is a smooth gradual transition and why is there in the spirit of the stasi testified why it's there i questioned him you're saying that a radius transition is stronger than a sharp transition is that which is saying yes and then also in doing the radius transition you're better able to maintain the same thickness of the material through the transition yes i mean it was that radius transition has there first of all the inherent result of drawing metal the wrong him a pan out of a flat piece of metal you get a radius transition you can do some control and you do the control to make sure that it's a uniform thickness when you do the drawl so that you don't have a weak point where you make the transition from cars around the vertical that's what need he pulled the band from the plate so now you've got one piece unit and he makes a smooth gradual transition so that you get the strain so that you get the plating characteristics so that you get all these things and again the purpose of the meeting was not over him and patient the purpose of the meeting is how can we develop the most economical in japan or you know refrigerator hinge pla talking about you absolutely even have a design pattern in the utility path but here you've got there's only one feature this different from the prior art i don't know that in that situation you can maybe you can i think in that situation with the only difference between then the new device and the prior art device there's a smooth gradual transition that you can get a lot back i'm saying that you can't in this situation  of his hands again having only one distinguishing feature over the prior art and then and you consider the absence of nonfunctional features the only difference again from the prior art was the quote on his one little area that's the only difference between this product and the prior are clearly demonstrates the functional nature and that to the extent that it's attractive to look at first of all who cares second of all there was no purposeful ornamentation and that's certainly is the inherent result or byproduct of good work of the my manufacturing process
the defendant's burden to show that there was collusion when the government is controlling not only the accept painted material but is involved in some of the  that was a front for a misdemeanor prostitution operation was only a mile or so from the state troopers office one first wonders what happened during the six years that the  ninety three but the reality is he wasn't going to be deported and all this in jest that he was on some type of supervision by us is also a portion of the r so when you hear that testimony that we didn't have any contact with the federal government it demands additional inquiry or ngugi with the night a continuance two days before the othe controlled by the prosecutor you'll never know really what i'm asking time i left the second doesn't record in this course opinion whether it happened the second time that was about two weeks or three weeks later that he spoke to him the second time that time he the indicted on that same charge and counting the day from from the federal complaint to the indictment was all right but if you go back earlier to to when the immigration warrant was serve trial back to civil detentions and offices of the decor no evidence of actual collusion between federal criminal and civil authorities and finally the third factor was something of the public interest really requires if they're going to consider release it doesn't go into the details it's a solicitous they're using any lawful options that are appropriate in this case to maintain his availability to face washington d c but passed them on to the state department to pass them off to the united nations so from the twenty seventh of april it was out of the hands of the immigration officer who was supposed to be colluding with the united colluded with the state department or with the united nations mission hills and well i mean how far are the unsubstantiated speculations going to go but if you if you will that what happened in that period of time well for approximately six days the defendant was responsible for the first week or ten days and the united nations took up the rest of the time and there's there's not a shred  back for many years prior that custody continued until june two thousand and one down in response to corporate ladder but because of the difficulty of trying to deport a passport was citizen of a country which was because this expectation that the case will be fully developed was justified because almost all of those objections reconsideration have already had two full opportunity to present a case to the department was before the initial decision makers and and you know i understand situations we've got neighbors that don't take care of their property and sort of headaches for the rest
and if you take a look at one of the cases including the defense cases in which they found that there was no foreseeability in those cases the court recognized that if you have a situation throws it in there were so more in the vicinity of five to seven pound shooters and about seventy people in the place and all three of them said the entire bar here presumably that would include stated clearly that if the issue starts inside the bar security the answer was no no no sir not you know i'm concerned about this no i don't want to go to the nightclub and there's trouble literally and you know those are things that me as a law and i think that she kind of confused the case for her by stating that the individuals needed to be present or this was not their corporate responsibility and us as i said yours the trouble that we have with this is that we have bouncers who have moved real names we have no one else to talk to our investigation led nowhere which in fact i think  testimony that came in that show who that this place was not a well known run organization trouble every weekend you may not know this but it was only a nightclub on the weekends it's not the type of serious physical altercation that puts the reasonable owner on notice that it is reasonably likely that attack will take place outside the the the west point that i want to get to with you know if you even if you agree with the judge and everything else and everything else what happens inside of the front entrance you look at the video and see who's point where you know you saw to ask yourself at the end of the day while there are these other factors that go into the du
support the ultimate conclusion and the conclusion to support what happened here we're here to be one that you know reasonable person would be from which no reasonable person would new doctor or using medication was there any evidence presented at panel even though he had infrequent visits with his doctor in the evidence about possible money and it doesn't come close to giving her anywhere in the standard of living of the marriage which is the only part of the law of this part of the law in this case the financial needs decrease  selling it to the person who made an offer and he said it wasn't enough money so he expects to get more than three hundred fifty thousand dollars for that alone and when when huge piece of testifies that i don't need my retirement income to support it was two thousand and six and none of that occurred didn't change in two thousand and five specifically say i expect the carters to tired some point or did she recognize their her credibility of it and that is she was a suspect in the jet effect chose to disregard her testimony that her ability to work was severely limited so that is the evidence we have here are something that has changed in the intervening time span the between judge winter since about june of two thousand and twelve she was as the trucker probably could do literally under employed she took a leave of absence to care for her true real mother which of course we have no trouble with at all but we do take issue with is when she returns from it leave about six weeks after going on it she could only work part time because her ability to didn't have any work for a magician for her and she freely admitted in her testimony she didn't do literally anything to find full time employment or to supplement her income who has gone through a bill process which was after the divorce when she went and got the degree that now that you are sixty some years old you shall know the ak and get to school to get a better job and you let your house out what it already is there for that under maintenance or anything that applies in this type of a case i will come back to it earlier and if that is in two thousand and twelve she became a of the trial record there was a change his income dropped significantly almost by half his pinkie filed a petition to terminate enjoy two thousand and fourteen his mother died in september of two thousand and fourteen his father's day in early two thousand and fifteen he didn't have that money and he foreseeable and no reasonable person would know them follows that on disperse them given her circumstances and as far as what she has chosen to spend money on i agree
because we had the elementary districts looking at the school basically the mounties feel the union plays committee and board looking at the needs and then representatives met together to fuse a budget that they recommended to those are both really good questions i'm not sure that you know the answer at this stage did you have any thoughts about that really tried to not exclude anything so one of the things vickie and i by the way i am the superintendent  o welcome great to see everybody we tried not to put parameters around things but have the commode committee really look at what makes the most sense when is it feasible is a viable what would it cost what would the grade levels be what would make the most sense what would the transition be about not trying to predetermine it's going to be here or it's going to be there so through that the work of that committee and we're trying to include as many stakeholders as we can we're to we're going to figure out some of those questions and it made come out in the end that you know just doesn't make sense for us but it may come out that wow what a great opportunity that somebody has the vision to say hey we're going to in such and such a date we might graduate forty flew in foreign language speakers and dual language i think that would be pretty exciting so there is a school based program in richmond their school based program and bowl i believe and i said and i ten and it looks like we're going to partner with the make one comment one of the cause positive benefits of preschool this year is that by implementing it now we actually suppress the tax rate because we were increasing our
all right properly granted the point just motion for judgment on the pleadings in the answer that question is no first to face the pleading itself show that the insurance company bucks in medical bills they would have a need for that on the hundred thousand dollar underlying future policy and then that would be repaid out of the hundred thousand dollars s that but it's been clear for decades that you cannot have a worker's compensation in a test under insured benefits so here are the attempted to do in their argument is recreated they write to us hold it in the basements and then give it back to them if they lost the count case as you claim in a better position under your argument as opposed to he had on the worst policy would have been a million said it has been we don't think it's been litigated because we think we have equitable defenses by the fact that they wrongfully denied account coverage from yours and now they're he or she would have been and had the conserve been adequately insured so in this case as your honor pointed out had mr chandler had a million dollars in coverage five of the worker's comp act he would not be able to get one million dollars to a recovery and a one million dollar worker's comp recovery illinois law prohibits that in this case  possibility that somebody might get more money under the uninsured coverage if they were drawing poor creatures or other uninsured motorist coverage well john are now actually out there it would be because if there is an million dollars of coverage that chandler a half other than attorney's fees it works not because he's going to get a million dollars he's going to get it because he's not going to give up work outside you know but we knew that there was a chance that we might lose in the commission and have to pay workers comp benefits which is precisely why the release was drafted in the way it wasn't me just point out there was no evidence that over the public drafted it a hundred is mr leahy we will give you the sniper big thousand dollars but if we went in the commission you could have it all it's yours because we won't be paying worker's comp if it's we just want so we will pay you i am that would include the union lane into the indian workers comp and if payments made to the worker's compensation case the language could not be clear the circuit court here got it right  and so yes the reason in this case why is because it's the same insurance companies do get one house and figure that out i don't know the answers of that if there was another insurance company would depend on what their policies and whether and how they lived their right to a set off  got to look at that way which was this case kind of sui generis because of the fact that the union got involved is the union county it is a problem only in the sense that this is a third party we have to deal with to cover the better bills while they were fighting the count somebody to pay it and luckily the union says that well i thought during your first argument that you were arguing that the reason for the release was because of the trenches arguments being made by the plaintiff's insurance company and