MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
on his just review of the police record where in too much considerably looser connections between them something that their balls in this neighborhood at the same time during the day i think if you look at the record there's a trial counsel says something that he think something else i think is there any first hand evidence that anybody got out of the ground think i recall one of the surveillance officers but maybe it's me reading the police reports that are not before the court the surveillance officers correct by the way it drove the unit it went past someone parking places and went down to the end of the roll as i understand it and turned around and then just waited for several minutes somebody got out and then went back out and they said that looks like counter surveillance yes that's right that's kind of surveillance no i don't believe that that even if that is kind of surveillance i don't think that one incident is enough for probable cause when you look at noses and i'm not suggesting it is but you said there is no connection will the only two probably so but that's i still believe that that's not sufficient at that point in time you know if you live the only case it's even remotely close to one that's cobbling the whole probable cause based on the presume and everything seems to turn on whether in fact i mean there is no direct evidence that they were seen talking on cell phones but you do have it you are twelve at five fifteen which is shortly before that there's an individual scene in the defendant's car with a cellphone you do have ten you have  no proof of us i mean leaving out the drop off which is that which is another question where years now prove association and arrest is made based on pure observation of cameras and islands well i mean i that case involved an officer who sees three individuals people these are connected walking together in an airport he wants up question them they give statements which indicate that they're not connected and the officer doesn't believe them he finds drugs in there sees
lawyer can waive the defendant's right to speak trial
those are important factors that your honor is raising because it all goes to what mr understood at the time that he entered this point and looking at it in terms of the supreme court constitutional standards he involved in all kinds after that that would require him to be waved into adult court but he had no experience with the criminal justice system there was one referral in one thousand nine hundred ninety which was four years previous which was still in baseball range of what we would expect a conflict criminal defense attorney to provide i think very high standards that's a very high standard that's correct and number two we must show prejudice in the case of the guilty plea you have to show that but to saying that there was a deliberate misrepresentation on part of i don't think there's anything in a lot of says it has to be deliberate meaning that it has to be intentional for the purposes of misrepresenting and it does have to be deliberate which was wrong because he told that information that second look he also told the client that he was facing two hundred forty two months that was completely incorrect based on the sentencing guidelines at the time he also told me he may not be he never made any sort of collateral challenge to go after germination in this proceeding when in the state post conviction court he never once in this faith post conviction court challenge collaterally the see it cried the state does not have to allege improve and did not allege that he personally committed the murder all we have to do is prove that he intentionally participated in a murder in which the victim was killed in order to even giving the state court decisions the deference that are due does not prevent this court from granting relief the decisions that are conclusions of law by the state court which
when he was trying to get out of the shed she sure is refusing to believe you know that there is where you are the issue really right is he he was trying to get her out of the shed and this is where he told he had to do to to sit in the was a separate building two hundred feet away from the house correct where there are more than one driveway your honor right there is an aerial photograph i don't recall the answer off the top of my head but i think it would be reflected in the her and that neither had the property owner her father in law chelsea has defied that she had just as much right to be in the shop as he did and the way the defendant never has to fight back and really was legally barred from the shop in fact he bed that we raised with bed he was really justified in the defense of property and he was he was injured to raise that we need to show that he was wrong we've possession of the house and his use of force was reasonable there's no evidence reduced by the state regarding whether or not the the amount of force used was reasonable and the only evidence introduced by others that he was wrong with possession i don't believe that's in dispute the state can disprove bed anything by reasonable doubt in regards to whether or not this use of force was
emotional stress damages if we can prove that they are not god neither under the statute so important that threshold question what is your position is it that they are not authorized by the statute with or authorized only when there i are separate issues and that's why so you only when i read your break you when i read the post trial brief at the bankruptcy court i only read i only saw said oh maybe i missed it but first circuit in the fleet case they've said that the purpose of the automatic state is to give some time for breathing when it is the human side of the bankruptcy law it allows people to step back gather their thoughts and ra's them to proceed further without the harassment from creditors and that's what we had in this case the harassment from creditors that the judges in the west from district said was patently and obviously agrees and that's a standard that can only be surrounded by clear air standards rushing relook at the statute here in surrey congress intended to address that by providing in appropriate behind this state provision on the emotional distress side of things is that it is you know it was specifically to address what  you beings may suffer through the actions of creditors the harassment whether it's by telephone calls by letters by lawsuits or by such as in this case locking the to actually person there are some other circuits that have not included corporations in that definition but how we've read the terms of the statute to distinguish one class of individuals that doesn't seem to appear anywhere on the face of the statu it was just a way that some of the circuit seven target under that provision to get economical excuse me emotional distress damages mr  if we're if we agree with the  as to what constituted his terminations as to what the punitive damages well in fact if anything it might be might be wise to remain on the matter proof set forth by the way and so is because they proceeded pro se before the bankruptcy court what would be the basis for were to pin you to the damages without any compensatory damages basically to punish and deter others as in other cases i mean as you can read from the factual situation in this case the conduct was agreed as police were called people were locked out of their businesses
that none of them exonerated mr robinson because they provided circumstantial evidence those are not the standards that's not the analysis that is at this stage it's necessary to clarify some of the applicable legal a contribution this court well established rest such as that there is no difference between direct and circumstantial evidence that has been this court's long standing up presence there is no such thing insufficiently reliable so that would be for example the state has argued be can't patients are inherently unreliable the word is that it's not proper to make that determination at the pleading stages of a post conviction proceeding that these three witnesses are not credible because of their circumstances or because of the delay in their coming forward rather than or just consider is whether these individuals circumstantial testimony tending to implicate a state witness is sufficiently inclusive without looking at credibility just weighing out in terms of all of that all of the evidence and because there has conceded here today that the court has to consider the trial testimony and making this new trial so i just want to be clear and distinguish between the credibility determination and the now says a claim of innocence which requires that the for consider not just the affidavits here but all of the testimony is presented and certainly the center piece is the case with his extreme lee lengthy and detailed bestand but importantly that confession was corroborated nearly every respect by independent arguments about what rebutted by the record what might be inadmissible of a new trial but the court need not reach those issues because it can consider all day every element of the affidavit even if that mythical would not be sufficiently  worked because the standard very difficult to meet to be sure whether it raises the probability again more likely than not that no reasonable juror would convict the defendant so
however in guatemala in particular people usually don't inhabit that middle zone for very long they they they are done away with they are disappeared they are and there's been all these great experiences with people records indicate a change country conditions if in fact this person is african nation it becomes the burden of the government to prove that the country conditions have changed fundamentally and they couldn't be changed fundamentally contain and somebody looks again before the police take them down to the station and take their name next time around but these are just an example of how they're trying to pass the facts in this case to make it sound worse than  knew none of those people had had any problems political problems whatsoever
any discovery whatsoever on the claim against it or on it look at the rationale for it that the state cases in the principle of law that party cannot benefit from the provision that it has caused to be why do you think you are  live in light of what song i don't i don't know that there's a good answer to whether which side should hold onto the money in that session as it is at the moment that would especially in light of the fact that there was an additional growth agreement layered on top of all the waivers that this could be enforced under c p r thirty two thirteen which provides for summary proceedings in which by definition  knew putting aside the issue under fifty sixty if the fact is a party is only entitle to discovery when and when discovery is essential workers required to to give the party access to something central to close th you if i could start with the the last point and i think that even in state court and under in cases proceeding under thirty to thirteen that the courts do allow limited discovery to determine whether the would like discovery regarding the negotiation of the bridge loan agreement and particularly articles nine and ten which contain a guarantee in the agreement to negotiate circumstances surrounding
victim if you've got somebody else that can talk about this i think that's an argument that comes before the poor but the only time this judge said that this
that your point about the conflict is part of the main issue in this thing but where one is this issue raised in your brief i see references to the two different sections of ten zero one zero zero three point two three has no ability to reopen in your view that's correct and how do you square that with the implicit recognition in in into forty eligible to adjust status yes but if she can't move to reopen because of the ninety day bar then two forty two being conferring eligibility on her after five years give a rational explanation for all this for its reasoning on the conflict here  to respond to it at that point and nobody challenged it hasn't been challenged until now and we've now got been coughed up a retroactivity issue which could could possibly be a voice constitutional  been pending for three years and why it took this long to adjudicate but the point is she could have moved to reopen within ninety days of the five years in order to raise that argument may she make it an issue in this case she's two years too late except that the i a e a said it make the argument unless she filed within five years and ninety days passed that she cannot make a mark she was constitutionally don't but you could have us do what you wanted to do what would that be basically your honor i have i'm going to go with abuse of discretion they acted arbitrarily rationally i want to i also sided with the recent case back in march which was
have to measure the size of the people if we have to measure there is a just and we'll have to cycle just coming in is is it really a fifteen year old or was a twelve year old mentally it seems to me that that argument leading us away from taylor why can't we just say per se a person by statute we have today cannot give consent and so it is a rape and what could happen in the rape well she may change her mind and get bloody she may have she may get pregnant which both of these women did that were sliced and have to go through an abortion but that is physically as well as mentally traumatic and may last for years and there is th statutory rape it's clearly a crime of violence because to the serious potential risk of physical injury to another afterward i think this chord of this is the riley decision in which the court two application no three the issue is just these occur on the same occasion and the answer is no they did not that they could county a marijuana conviction is simply not related did not occur in the same occasion as rate three of them that's correct they're completely different of the two the two narcotics convictions are rebels are my point is that the bigger county delivery conviction thirty one is not related is not even warranted conclusion remind me of question i'd like to ask you and that deals with the really case where there was a simple great and bold and i judge hearkens opinion for fourth appears to talk about a potential risk whether or not statutory rape this time of plans he does not provide for the for the government in america says one in every episode of simple rape may not result in physical injury to the victim the guideline only requires that there be a serious potential risk we have to have a statistical determination of serious potential risk means more likely than not to create an injury prior to that we have to have statistical information but i think your related and the fact that the coincidence of of geography takes them an hour of hard different studies relatively close to one another should not prohibit a finding that they are related to guidelines do
area itself the structure did not violate the easement even if you just look at the seven holes in the st place but then court that now they do exist so it seems like we have an pools structures they could have very easily limited they did not do that the court found that there was no ambiguous the court found that there was no limitation in terms of the number of multiple poles that could be on one whole structure that was
elements of the domestic battery in church and then if that sentencing you know the court agrees that i'm going to say it the incident
to repeat what she said you understand because i quite understand then just to be quite certain she rushed in here to change her clothes and then she did but i don't knock it i don't understand mr owens then let me explain a little mr willis first that is the obvious connection between you and ms king both of you lived for a number of years in manchester yes but that doesn't mean that the girl's clothes and picture came from miss and so the entire case against mr had a truck or rested upon your testimony that you overlooked something what was said miss king did go outside to speak to head and they did quo but owe you a few as it is
for the issues to have a fair trial before an impartial jury now the trial court below got this wrong and the reason for that is because the case as i just mentioned supports this argument and it really boils down right to it impartial jury the fact that these questions went to the heart of the state's case and that the state was trying to flesh out who would be receptive to these questions notably they struck to the jurors who seemed to express consider appeal from the counsel is not in the fact of mostly addressing the original appellate counsel but basically saying it's not and why this is where we think that this court can make a new station with this is the important point
my name is gary horsley and i represent the power in this matter drilling essentially the primary issue in this appeal is whether or not the lower court properly assessed the evidence in favor of the nonmoving cut line ok so the point is does not have the option they could either one use this form and if they did they did not have to go to the other portions of the special provisions the same way i mean we as the better we thought we could get away with doing it this other way and the form is misleading the benefit they should've given us the benefit of the doubt but the eighteen percent but city council so we that's what we mean that's what our forms mean so how are you proving a discriminatory intent or a violation here slack the disadvantaged business enterprise documentation ok so that's what goes to the city council now you're suggesting that basically the city council rubber stamp so we have to trace back then to documents but what the berkeley city council and the director of public works thought they were doing was rejecting the bill because it didn't comply with the d d e form what's the evidence to suggest that they're part and parcel of a quota system that think also ratification requires that if they just can't rubber stamp something either there has to be some sort of informed decision making here in this case they were not making an informed decision i believe there's a case on have some other municipal policies that era talk about you know affirmative discrimination for example we presented evidence that they do in fact have a city ordinance requiring contractors to employ minorities and a certain percentage based upon a c subcontractors on a public works job that was by their person most knowledgeable representing the same county in the city and that's a very important point you're right because what they're saying is if you don't hire any subcontractors on them to work things up and that you know the paperwork that goes through your credit process if they all they are doing as a practical matter is rubber stamping what is put in front of them they don't know what good faith documentation absolute zero evidence of th commencing on line one to line six so clarify it's your testimony then if the contractor does not one hundred percent that's not the word meet meet when i percent of the work himself that would not be acceptable to the city of berkeley because they're not meeting the underlying policy which is that some of the work should be given out to a d b subcontractors is that right this very subject is between counsel and myself and then a final answer and that's five zero one of the record and actually down below on that also shows that questions and comments comments and questions in using an engineering division use a person that you argument and we'll stand in recess for the day and judge gibson will pick you up shortly time from our other from oh i'll be ready thank you
provides for it there is a commercial space you know first for which there is a lease between the parties they came to a point of disagreement after a round and drawn out disputes absolutely the tenant terminated the lease despite destroying the nation the landlord lack of being able to conduct business right there you know first the tenant was in twelfth the issue as the tenants had not gotten the revenue over time and if for some reason that lease was still active the tenant gross precluded from accessing it was not given it etc the underlying claim which if we look at the major issues in the case it is fundamentally disputed as the lease agreement whether or not the tenant terminated release because the landlord failed to deliver his possession of the completed costs there's no fee petition encouraged there was no opportunity to present that and there was no raising of right fees and costs in that their petition work spend it towards the recovery of change here evidently the record shows that there were costs because there was a counter claim file evidently and over to your trial without attorney's fees and bad the court never weighed how much was spent to recover that amount of money it's acid decent discretion it is subject to decent discretion review who is the landlord if you look at the cases that talk about peace mutual defeats or at least snag victories these are cases where the recovery is minimal and it's outside of the bounds of the lease agreement itself it does not pertain t landlord's claim plus the additional money for the secure did seek a hundred twenty thousand think that there are some amount of fees and costs that would be due and even sell you know for not looking as you know read question the traffic below should have reviewed to determine exactly what amount of the fees and costs were expected towards security deposit that was something in fees that would need to be looked at too i think both sides can say this is very small or in fact to get our security deposit back we had to prove the lease germination was valid and it's rare in a security deposit case you have to bring we do a bad thing to respond to justice kristen's review of that when he's setting the space the space is referencing account to claim there is a web and b it is not be accommodation space so i would say to the extent that we were given the accommodation space there's no play there but i think that any of this does hinge on whether or not it's a case about the ministry recovery of a security deposit and what you have to do to get it and where you have to do to get it is defeat all right exclaimed that went on noted that those were removed if germination was valid so this is my thoughts that there is a case of trying to trap defending against a major claim by a landlord and of course if that lease is terminated security deposit comes back the other items correctly stretch clifford noted go by the wayside if that terminations proper my client privilege as it grants the benefit of the bargain it had with the other party to the contract which are its piece and there's nothing in the contract and there's no dispute in terms interpretation
evidence most of his brief focuses not attacks to the credibility of the victim and as this court knows it is not to be trying and reclaim the credibility determined by the trailer back to the denotable based upon those facts that are not against the manifest weight whether or not the evidence should be suppressed number because they knew it was degraded over several  there was a pick the from the right or from the supreme court opinion there was no mentioning that there was anything actions by way of hollow that and interrogation her interview can use frequency the translation of that was it confuses the jury because what they did hear and wonder maybe they're able to make a reasonable inference of it is over one hundred inciden