MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
under section one fifteen dish seven point three one fifty seven point three allows for other kinds of events to be introduced but it also specifies that evidence has to relate to an actual crime and  incident was an accident mr johnson also contest that it was an accident so the judge could actually consider it confounding to be an accident then it wouldn't fit as another crime because it would have been a crime if he would have had weighing of the probably a value versus the prejudicial effect is that correct correct yet if we look at what's required for that i'm certainly this incident met the test of being constantly close to the incident that was criteria is factual similarity and certainly i don't know what could be stronger than having the same victim involve so that it would meet the test of factual similarity as well world is never any good if it does not because third consideration one way probably versus prejudice is it's kind of a catch all other factors in this ability if you look at it d h told her mom that the concept of the lake was an accident was touching her bare breast for five or ten minutes while her settlers were sitting there and her mother was forty feet away and beach is pretty unbelievable the that lay the cards that could happen without anyone noticing limited to just what would fit the definition of a prior crime so why should this is the essentially your article has to be that the evidence was not relevant explaining why did evidence of the relationship was not relevant to the victim's testimony that this touching occur who the relationship was definitely relevant but that's why these sort of ask can be misconstrued this was more like a father daughter relationship and understand the evidence and the instructions so it isn't that the jury has to ignore it the argument did not listen to the content because i mean there's a reason for exactly it's all right but there's also a reason all the whys relevant evidence the absence of state knowledge and to show the existence of a relationship or use you're saying that there has to be a hearing prior to trial to determine whether or not the victim's testimony along those lines is it would be if the state is introducing other acts evidence for purposes of intent lack of mistake or motive there's usually a motion filed again usually is not what's required by law it is a theory wired to  going to portray him maybe not all the attention when he put a substantial part of it's going to color him in negative way my question is conversations touching on the shoulder robbing the bank those types of things that do not
stable married person is given the opportunity to set aside property that will not be taxed at the moment of the scenes but rather will be taxed at the moment of the spouses death such qualifying property m everything is pointing to night hons is the critical time period to make a q tip election and as i said if we don't use nine months and we have no duty use and that just puts the attorney general position we can assess tax because there is no  property it became common tenants and common property would have been taxed to that provision but the court said doesn't matter because the disclaimer provision is a bell the way the property changes again it's not about how taxes the same as the court said it's not the this property had been somehow alienated away it would not be eligible we're not contesting that there are doing that somehow at the date of death or in those st nine months if that exists there if there isn't it follows the federal rules for treatment of property as passing to the surviving spouse and inclusion in the surviving spouses estate it's clear that the language all references the inclusion of the q tip property this case and address your points made by the attorney general here this afternoon at the outset it's important to know the soulish you before this court and that is whether or not the federal nine month is only the attorney general's interpretation that the property that the trust and ball head had did not invalidating provision that leads them to conclude it was not time but there is there is no  property and what was so if she were to sell some of it that would be heated but if she kept some of it until she died that would be he seems to want to have his cake and eat it too he doesn't want to have to make an election at the time of mr du that the argument that she had a power that is inconsistent with cuba has been forfeit this was an argument below the whole of the circuit court that it was unfortunate that this power was in the trust it is not a time machine you can't use it to go back and avoid taxes that have already come
would be in need of only in patient mental health treatment if because of mental illness he was either in life we are reasonably likely to inflict harm upon him so for all the others or because of mental illness was only able to provide for his niece so as to safeguard or were protections so in two thousand in three the legislature amended the stay if you do read the second provision and so since two thousand individuals have been involuntarily committed because of mental illness in the supreme court has recognized that there is a loss of liberty they are in therefore there must be due process of protections and the supreme court is a different individual  determination in the way of the the the current post two thousand and three statute the appropriate a statutory standard criteria mr yes th because there is the the history of the taking sort of substances and the fear that without treatment they need those substances again and in the future if there is this fear they need to take those substances but yet they can still be only mental illness but also the drug and alcohol substance abuse because he had a history of both either stopping his like a child with medication and then taking up with the illegal drugs again or what happened this time he started using if he's using i believe the doctor at elgin dr creamy said that he told her that while he was on his conditional release he was using alcohol cocaine and marijuana and certainly individually and in concert and particularly cocaine can c who would be perhaps committing crimes to obtain drugs and therefore because he had not yet internalized the substance abuse education the economy both as an inpatient and somewhat as an outpatient he  as to description as to how we can be in a position of high himself if he was not inpatient if he was locked out attention to the use of drugs potential for selling and ideally selling or carrying drugs the potential for me may be criminal conduct related to drug stats and that sort of thing and the rough crowd
entire proceeding yes in looking at the entire proceeding can we ensure should we consider the result of the sentence the after he was found guilty no definition doesn't want to get to sentence and that's the thing is right is to choose to plead not guilty well the strategy the mr rich employees are pretty obvious from the record he's he tried to negotiate the case with steve correct again and offers made offers related to the client doesn't take it but after a bench trial and then he gets a minimum sons where he has a horrendous room other than it up until a here and you haven't stated what would have happened and i understand the difficulty of it of being able to state what put the state's case to meaningful adversarial testing it doesn't say asterisk it's ok if the attorney doesn't do anything it's a client doesn't complain about it later just but again that's the whole point of kronk is dead there's so little representation there's no action representations there were left to guess about what would have happened had there been representation in the nature of the this wasn't those cases there was a confession he stipulated to testing his council member and has made it to the crime even though didn't it and his sentencing he said he was sorry for everything and the judge actually it's important that question to you is please explain to me how this proceeding based upon the nature and extent of the adversarial proceedings that took place to dish different receive a fair trial based upon what a reasonable stipulation that's not unusual for parties just to delay it and that was certainly a good reason to stop the stay put on the officer if he testified there just wasn't anything that anyone is pointing to that could have been the defendant that he hadn't been identifiable there were some serious issues with his understanding of the case would it be reasonable to say good based on what the outcome of the case w made it better his conviction claim why we're here today on interact appeal of it and
misunderstand i think it has everything to do with the underlying action once the cause was because if he did not get his order from the stake or his situation would be considerably weaker now but that's not the juvenile court shall issue such an order unless the attorney general consensus to that to the jurisdiction but this record says thou shalt consent for the j happens all the time if you take an appeal from an order of the court and you don't get a strike you lose the big comes moot it's not that you can't take an appeal and maybe maybe the answer is when you when you take that if statement over the phone and was the position was taken rebecca to discredit their testimony and it's if you look at done at the courthouse to that particular kind of visual search body cavity search your honor i do not know if there was a vigil body cavity search i do know that there was a strip search with which would mean that for example the women of the be asked to raise the bransford to bent over to certain expenses but there was no binding cavity search digital body cavity search at the compton courthouse but the concern is this if you have a concern about terrence because what we have in this hopelessly slanted investigation is that in the jail the women were treated differently than other track violators and in the investigation they were also jacket when there is i believe good cause t
judgement action alone regardless of whether or not judgement would be appropriate in the underlying earth you related merit of the solution action and issue in contrast is something that  issues of custody and support and property this repeating all those are certainly distinct issues from we're not obey all certainly are separate and independent of money mother alternative vicarious liability theory that somebody can see that there is liability there also render his agency or apparent agency liability moot in the understanding but that those who treat me may or may not be employed by on staff if you can tell based on your understanding that they might not be employed it's difficult to argue that you were actually a lying that was vision two feet of holding out the house panel informed the terrys of the independent contractor stat you that you get to be the director position or new reliance on the weakest most confusion of sentence in a consent which it is that i understand that not all of the physicians are employed and that's clearly not the disclaimer
suffer damage is great damage is nearly three million dollars and counting as the matter continues to be properly dealt with by the insurers but the cleanup brought us to the district court here in boston was a claim for not just damages in the traditional sense the ships or spill comes from a government owned vassal that's operated by a non government company employing civilian employees it's a mouthful but it's pretty straightforward stuff there's ten  nothing to do with the spill at least two point eight million and counting was incurred respond to move or oil and other damages the vessel was owned by the government the vessel was operated by a private company with a civilian this functioning on the ship we know there was no there was no government people will be able people that were turning the valves across this while still this was something that was discretionary by the embassy personnel onboard the ship that were there performing other repair innocent party know if the government doesn't say when the spill occurred by the way your recourse is to the trust fund and so obviously at some point because they bill they clean this bill up and no one comes forward well you do what you usually do you go to court to get some relief is there no obligation on the fire of the government in a situation like this you may be the wrong person has to make it clear as to what is the proper way to get recompense for taking care of a problem which your client probably should have done in the first instance and certainly big government is your client is is if he didn't except the government's right to know what the ship was is was responsible for the spill in the first instance there are two responsible there's thinking more of when they came to this court they had an obligation to explain to the court what their claims are and what because by the time they got to this clip there was i think it's best to say some degree of confusion and bad who was claiming why and what the n as owner and operator and i just think it's quite important for this case that and c can be an operator and the united states can be an operator and the vessel can still be a public vessel  there's the united states make the contract for just the operator make the contract and is there anything to get me on price which indicates that this is a government ship a we did prevent a big chunk of the contract between and see in the government that showed that n c had authority to contract on the governments but there were limitations on it and it had to put in such clauses that it had to get says and he says we're going to operate a special for the government the government says that's great and then harrison big ticket things that we really you need to get that commission and we want these clauses but it would be incredibly inefficient if every
that it required creditors approval that's a quote there too in august special counsel a motion to approve the compromise and in providing such indicated it was with respect to the w or came on before the courts or to be heard on november nineteenth at that point in time once again it was a motion providing that where's this portion would be callous it was determined that it would be appropriate to connect a confirmation which would then happen the last part of this special counsel indicated because the court was concerned over the only thing yet actually knew was what was contained in the motion in fact it was that day that that letter was provided one page letter the court required it to come to an agreement it was indicated that agreement could be put together by thanksgiving and so the court indicated with give them  cows then that it would be used if in fact it's not a commercial tort but i still think you have to look in the first instance as to what kind of nature is this action and if you look at the cause of action i don't think you can explain couse the petition is because each of the bankruptcy code you can't get something after that you determine and look at at the deposition what did the bank in fact there was no settlement in fact when we argued that before the bankruptcy but there was no settlement it had not been a so in the words of one of the general intangible and therefore when it's all said and done it's ok it's commercial and they therefore do not have a lien and such now i want to go back to the noticed requirement because i think it's a separate issue and this is how wasn't a pay everybody and all the winners post had to find a mechanism whereby they could get as much as they possibly could for some of the plant what they did is they chose to go to georgia because creditors but most particularly getters and those pertaining to that bankruptcy estate it has the ability to undo what it fact has been done for example if the worst most were to go through during the pendency there bankruptcy a divorce and happened with respect to the first in september there was a decision we filed an appeal so that ferndale there after it was determined that it really was probably case where in fact what the court found is a land which included the insurance proceeds to take their case and that is not the case there is no language with respect to the commercial tort and that clearly when you look at what happened there was no contract with his electrical work they merely were asked to come and do the work and get it wrong probably the next item your honor with respect to your honor's with respect to this matter is the issue on the appeal time could be a question of that we think it's a question of law because we don't think that the court applied the appropriate approach and a reason why is because in this particular case it's got so caught up in the fact it was going to georgia and these people doing the same thing that they'd done
finding perhaps that the injunction was not followed but that does not mean the amendment violation as well observations conducted by medical person now the question is do you have an extreme deprivation
why is that  side the court's order on may sixth the recording of the proceedings i'm a six indicate that there was a graphic ation hearing a march thirtieth but we don't have a transcript of that hearing even though there's a record of it somewhere without notice or hearing there on one two thousand track court struck the aforesaid pleadings on the basis that they failed to comply with supreme court i don't know the reason now you know from march twenty ninth two thousand gender march eighteenth two thousand low in which you test negative really sharp so to know what alcohol test from november fourth two thousand oceans and that inside the verification herself and yet she decided she wasn't going to appear are turning herself into the authorities while this warrant was outstanding were her arrest lam and go out and have her attorney appear in her stead i think judge boss was very generous by even considering these motions on the merits and this court certainly on a there was a question before about the absence of a transcript of the march thirtieth hearing and if there is a conflict between the common law record and report of proceedings  also i can under well understand why walter dean did not present a copy of assessment very center because the defendant told the counselor there she was continuing to use alcohol forty six beers i think drinking forty six appears a day seven months into her sentence of probation she was also using cocaine a few lines of cocaine once upon and failure on probation and even though she was alcohol cocaine dependent she decided she became disillusioned with curry center and also one of their staff members her out drinking in public in july of two thousand and ten which conflicts with her representation to them that she stopped drinking in january of two thousand and ten so her admissions of drinking and using drugs while she's on like well well over the purse a limit so so you have heard not taking this seriously even though she's been given a significant chance she's had probation numerous times before i can well understand why why dean if he wasn't possession of these documents would present have because the court would become even angrier thing and enhanced her sentence so her she didn't complete baton told well past the deadline she was supposed to think and then she came up with these documents that said she performed work but they didn't say when she did this public service that it may very well have found more than one violation also counsel complained about being not acquiring the records from the juvenile case about when she was taking  submitting to urine tests if he was not her attorney and unless she provided those documents to him he would not have access to those juvenile court records would be confidential revoke revoked well it was actually a two month period between the october thirtieth deadline for her pleading her public service work and the filing of the titian to revoke so that was not certainly an inordinate i find no use of discretion if this is going to look at what judge boss i think gave her much more than she was entitled to i'd welcome any question thank you
and we'd like to reserve three minutes family members in the family members of the by that the gangs were still coming around looking for him out there at their houses rather locations itself but then when it is he said it was yeah but then when the family members moved there is no evidence they used to be contacted so i understand that there they are they're going after the family member because they're hoping the family members will leave them to roll the locals but if the family members move and they don't go up the family members anymore then that would was our shoplifters again a group of persecuted group or not well if the earth i don't know that they're actually considered to be a social group in another cell here in united states because they don't they don't you don't they gangs don't seek retribution against them right so it seems to me if that is the only reason it has social visibility that seems to be a problem unit which is no we don't we don't look at whether or not they are actually we treat them as if they are and is that how we should look at this is that how the the  remember that description
there is actually and that is everything
oh right right really if he threw it while running if the jury decided that he threw it while running how was the knowledge  path and i believe the evidence indicated that the gun was found pass where another defendant who also ran partially that way if the jury determined that ames and if the answer is they can't be sure then wouldn't say command each of them to stop and what their failure to stop  ok then leave leave me out what i said very true is that here it is just that's the guy we want how do we know who the guy we want is when they're running out with me all leave and they were away from us