MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
absolutely others there's no there's no evidence to support any of the i invision judges conclusions here excepting his testimony is true which i may or may not do in the end but accepting his testimony is true should go but i would you do vow that none of these people should go out so we will keep a watch on them questions will you watch to make sure the detainees did not leak yes and you guard of those prisoners no because the prisoners were inside and our main gate that was outside and not sure what that means question i know but your duty was to stand outside the interrogation room and to keep them from escaping correct yes ma'am well if he is in some fashion keeping us people from  that it is main position is outside the main gate i have trouble seeing how he is in a position to offer water to a prisoner during a break in the torture interrogation because he would he would be outside the main gate but instead his testimony is well persecution do we actually have an adverse credibility finding yes ron i believe i say i gave specific cogent reasons as you know i understand he gives reasons but did he say i don't find him credible  record he supervises for people yes right and from his description of we've taken his narrative or we take it to be true when he intervenes to give the man water the other guy gets a mob that doesn't quite sound like something that his inferior would do to i've got a question about adverse credibility finding if we assume that we have an adverse credibility finding me as i read the record here there's a fairly strong reason to find this man not credible but the i didn't mention it and larry has his initial written application in ninety seven doesn't mention any of the detailed episodes that he starts to talk about in two thousand and three files a correction two thousand and three to add
same we have a very limited warranty that week we give you up to a thousand dollars if you do certain if certain things happen and we do this investigation then it doesn't seem to me from looking at these documents and brokers of your client that they're saying that we are i tell you that each one of these listings is accurate a refund of fifty percent of the sales price of the battery under those circumstances so we argue that i'd suggest is very central to the point scoring here that beyond the attorney general's regulations it's sort of commonsense standpoint the argument that that basic brutal guarantee is a fraud fifty six point one statement was not disputed a lot there was a separate statement filed by the plaintiff dealing with additional facts very has never reports approach to addressing them is a matter of state was a wise way of doing it and probably wiser than our initial approach
career criminal because his nine hundred ninety one arizona conviction for aggravated assault does not categorically qualify as a violent felony i'd like to make three points this morning and focusing on the definition of aggravated  the first is that the arizona statute itself and some supreme court decision in fear of which i cited in my brief make clear that no physical force or actual violence is required to be convicted of aggravated assault  forty nine and fifty of the record right i've read that in this record but if you went on that argument day with they still could prevail if you're a modified under matthews for example they get a second bite at the apple to show that there's really more here like they have have two three points one is that obviously the arizona legislature has changed we changed it and we think it's correct approach you know which is what the government cited because the reason i don't think it's so significant is because the reason for doing for making that statement about prospect of retroactive in the statute itself does use the words it's different when you're lucky claire and i looking at the words the word something or you can pretend that they're not there you know i don't pretend that i mean i obviously they're there and it has some significance i think the significance must be viewed with respect to what the state legislature is doing and what the federal court is doing and what the state legislature is doing is partly saying we're not going to give anyone the benefit or change their conviction based on this and we're not challenging the mr craft goes aggravated assault on a police officer on a peace officer and arizona ninety nine one under the categorical approach does not constitute a violent felony  that not the underlying facts i'm not attempting to bring those before the court but the statute speaks to his conduct involving assault on these officers and even under even if the court were to reject certainly involves force against the person and the only categories question here is that the touching of another within ten to injure that i don't have much time here i do want to make two very brief on the on the whether it's a one year felony issue i just want to make the point that there's there is a reason to take into account look at how a crime has changed over a period of ten years twenty years thirty years allows the courts to take into account the way the state's own evolving standards of criminal jurisprudence and gift respect to those to th violence and bancorp ration twelve zero four eight two which is so the deadly weapon meets the definition i don't think that you can go through that same analysis when you don't have a deadly weapon and reach the same result deadly weapon which does not apply to one of the elements which you're talking about that's exactly right i don't think you could separate half of that sentence and apply only that half of the sentence and take away the tell the weapon element and square that with
search the door of the bedroom was close to two camera while to come out of the bedroom they found a paint can in the closet that had a lot of money in it on top of the money was the gun this is the  hold the dog he had learned him to testify outside the presence of the jury and allowed them to cross examine him so they had in finance knowledge of what his testimony would be and an opportunity to cross him outside the presence of the jury before he actually therefore proper procedures for identifying expert testimony was the government's argument the government's position would still be that the steps that the district court took to make sure that there was no one due to the defendant would have been sufficient  was expert testimony required of this very unusual circumstance where there was a dog marking that the prosecutors weren't aware of and so this is a limited scenario and where the district court expressed they found that there was no bad fa there since there was a positive alert i don't think the investigators had any anything to gain from not disclosing that you know this was a case where both of the resources had been directed to you trailing  although not by name the other people that were working with them on this you know they talked about someone who was from the dominican republic it talked about the practice of the supplier to use a they call it a door which is translated in the transcripts as a watch person who fits that role and the evidence at trial was that he actually fulfill that role by for instance sitting within solace in the heart while the trends were loaded and because he had the money the drugs and had money the money that is approximately one hundred  and possibly the confusion here is that there's money for the transport of the drugs from the dominican republic and then there's the money that they would have been going to receive from the undercover agent when they made the transfer that did not take place ok so this money the right amount roughly yes your honor so minus fifty dollars it's one hundred nineteen thousand dollars which is evenly divisible by seventy which is the forty five that was actually captured in the back of that half and that twenty five
steps it has to take including issuance of guidelines for how it's going to be processed the rules of processing it the rights of the parties and so forth relating to that process receive i did not receive the requisite due process require before those orders were entered as a result we're not seeking to set aside the orders based on a decision made by the court as to not get to our aims at the level you know at the actual trial and which we would have an opportunity to cross examine witnesses to present witnesses and to really get into these issues we were stuck with order directly but then there are also the de facto appeal which is what we have here and that is why it's important to look at the release because the release ought to not be granted by the federal court without cited the the it ministry or has a limited duty in terms of addressing heroes in quadros essentially there's a checklist that has to be reviewed by the plan administrator and that is the back well let me say st of all that the committee decided and maybe it was an address in my brief because they didn't address it in their their opening brief or reply brief but the key point i'm trying to make is that the kennedy decision cited by the district court provides for a checklist approach and they did not include that in their opening brief so i don't have a response to that argument because it was essentially waves or abandoned on the part of the appellant is that the procedure want to mention i know my time is running out but there's a family code section in texas that says that the the texas courts have continuing exclusive jurisdiction to modify or reverse the water or d r so however you want to call it you are usurping the jurisdiction of the texas court so that is a legal question this court can determine to say that no this case doesn't belong in federal court it belongs in state court and mr lustrum has avoided jurisdiction in texas he doesn't want to go back to texas because he's facing criminal charges there or a veteran organs to me ask my colleagues do either of you have additional questions for mr martinez or mr barnes
might also say that well even if it were actually in terms of a grubstake it really doesn't matter is just a generic you can example a certain amount of money if i think that's correct you can you s you know again i don't know he did not he did not ok what you think the court would have to get into questions of why wasn't it asserted earlier and then sort of motive question is that your
committed perjury as his grand jury testimony on the subject of mr ross his behavior at the time of the shooting the question of the heart of this briefing has been whether mr ross has been diligent to satisfy it didn't tell both stories of the trial what more could you get from the grand jury testimony but the jury never learned was that this officer evidently committed perjury that he was actually hiding under the dash board when ross was shooting and so did those the two thirds they came out of trial he was impeached the trial what more could you have gotten out of the grand jury transcript person so all of it as i understand it maybe i'm wrong we really don't know what he said in the grand jury proceeding right we don't know well we don't know because that wasn't developed to do some investigation of this claim and the fact is the record shows absolutely no diligence at all there was never any request to introduce any evidence  required to disclose whether the officer had told absolutely different story from the story he was now putting forward prior and there for due diligence enough to seeking to develop this particular evidence and the record clearly shows that there was never even an even attempt to develop this particular kind of evidence coopersmith spelt out what has to be done in order to show do diligence and there has to be an attempt to develop the particular type of evidence at issue and the fact that petitioner did not in this case like to make two points in response first council has just proposed that the evidence would not have been significant had it been developed in light of the other ballistics and such that is not correct your honor the most serious conviction which is which mr brusqueness convicted was the attempted murder charge and on that particular charge the issue of his intent was very much the issue and the jury was deeply divided on that it was a ten to two verdict which demonstrates that at least two jurors had substantial misgivings about the quality of the state's proof and for that reason in particular the importance of the states very clearly that this man officer obviously testified before the grand jury and that he is testifying to something different in court and that's a quote there has to be perjury someplace and that put the post
lawful of the parties to be impounded legally the purpose of the surge has to be to protect property to protect the police from danger in order to protect the police from property claims that was the case here
but we got married we had two hundred people at a reception so you know approximately you know what the trends are with us with wedding sizes and reception sizes and it is that because i think of one hundred people and wondering if that's going to be a limitation or if some you know trends that are showing that you know wedding reception sites are getting smaller or that you know what percentage of the population has a wedding that size and have an average body size besides about one sixty one seventy and we are striving for a you find that information and then after that did the city give you any indication as far as what the demand for a wedding so i guess i'll take the first part we use the google trends tool which is a graph of search trends
she falls to her right side she immediately fills out an accident report she references multiple body parts she testifies or started their report references multiple body parts she testifies that that were first to her right there was no diagnostic testing ever done to the left shoulder she never complained about any pain to the left shoulder there were no bruising on her left shoulder no arms on her left shoulder five days prior she had gone to another doctor for another treatment involving a completely related issue there were no complaints in the medical records of any injury to the left shoulder in that little back however after the accident date of november ninth two thousand and eight which is undisputed she complained of severe headaches low back pain right shoulder pain and pain when her turning her neck she didn't wait a couple of miles to go and finally follow up with her primary care physician she testified that she waited a couple months because she wanted well that is where this issue issue here she testifies that she did complain of the neck pain but the records don't verify their record that's correct your honor then cording to dr weiss there was conflicting medical opinions with respect to causation the commission she tells him she did not experience any pain until two weeks after the fall the mission said you know we believe like ok then you have a girl medical doctor was q b right and he testifies that he was unfamiliar with the plan this medical records he gave an opinion that would support her number less this is true he testified that she should experience meant symptoms within a week or less after the accident i wouldn't be surprised i sort of support bisons opinion as opposed to the claimant's position well and there again there's a discrepancy i believe and some of the there were words because she denies telling dr weiss that dash she what she did not experience pain symptoms until two weeks later she testifies that she said that her pain started immediately her neck pain started immediately there's no river here there's no record that the lower your iris if we could look to the emergency room records all the evidence clearly seen again in your eyes to look at the fact that there was no preexisting injury there was no intervening accident from november ninth two thousand and eight up until the time that she sees dr kaufmann the only asset that we have here is the fall of november ninth two thousand eight
know it's not your call because you're here you know we need it was the behaviors but often we find that in these cases it piece of evidence that the state claims was armless was introduced for some into the court room and answered the jury's questions when they have it but that have to be cleared contact them by phone to give them a heads up what the question is and and then prepare a response so that when they do get to court you don't lose any time bringing the jury out into the courtroom to respond to that is there enough in the record from which we can draw the inference that council was contacted in some manner  campbell and he wanted to capture a few things on the record and he goes to have you response to the jury knows without any reference to counsel being president except that he goes magistrate judge responded that the clerk's minutes start each day with all parties and the defendant or president that happened during the trial and then when the jury was deliberating there's no reference like th of the offense and the a lack of a transcript of the in chambers discussion just does not seem unusual for state court practice well if i agree that not all in trainers conferences  transcribed but i think that the court's transcript when it refers to the prior notice of the court just responded to the notes without having any reference to counsel and where the last note is specifically mentioned so he went not whether that's an undesirable out of oh well yeah i say agree with you with your characterization of the legal standard but here the judge read and just focusing on her nd one i can't see any injuries effect at all for me really reading back to the jury a portion of the testimony that it asked for what's the what's a substantial injuri cumulative but just focusing on the miranda violation but so that's all we had here in the california supreme court without opinion turns down your hobbies petition so we have to i hate this law but it's what the supreme court told us we have to make up all the reasons why they might have turned it down and one reason why they may have turned it down was because it was harmless would back finding have been reasonable i think it would be
of those that after so many written request and repeated verbal requests and this around also inquire daily at the end when they know that this could be nothing else besides further significant injury also in mcguckin least as this honorable court has stated that it's serious medical need could be defined as one in which a reasonable doctor or patient found finds it worthy of comment or treatment permanent harm from the delay in filling the prescription that there's no permanent harm that's correct your honor however the courts have not stated specifically that permanent injury is required i see that my time is are the decorations of the plane up that he told the m t a on several occasions write about it and then there's the fact that the pharmacy never received it is a clear inference to be gone from then on these prison official to help that's him in this case and furthermore the doctors who saw him i'm a few weeks later know that there was no permanent damage there with he had them and they were him breathing and then he only had mild asthma and then therefore suffered these that much act but there was no medical documentation to support his claims that he did that and therefore the district court found that there just wasn't enough evidence to support his claims but i do agree it doesn't count in regards to used in a not too long period of time which would seem to suggest that having serious as my condition that is correct i don't  evidence and in his complaint he specifically laid out the facts regarding his severe asthma attack in june and that he was not able to receive medical attention so therefore that lack of medical records
and i use that in the plural because this is the city clerk found that stephen stanhope was the real party in interest had wanted to write a decision and i don't know if the court  done that if there had been a neutral selected no intent to start it's not called five that was ever many asian by the court i think to make some logical sense out of its order and in fact i was a man looking the record will show  entirely different claims and they included in arbitration five claims against the triple a lie in order to create a new factor a purported conflict to circumvent this court's ruling that any arbitration would have to be before the  and at the same time mr stern with represented to the aaa that this court had issued an order stating the arbitration that was one of the false representation there was no such order it was simply another example of u and mr stanwick and north america timeshare not getting involved the laying the proceedings have the last thing the defendants was precisely that sort of conduct that has led to six courts and drink orders finding both of them to be are more than seventeen lawsuits in the record that were filed by u c s d mr stanwood that they lost twelve of those in a two year period alone several of those cases seek to do nothing more than force the defendants over and over again in factual finding that in fact arbitration five was arbitration five it was a new arbitration and therefore paying fees for the new arbitration did not satisfy the condition imposed by this court in the two thousand and two mandate governs the submission or the initiation of new operation with in fact it had been intended to be an amended arbitration claim it would have been submitted under rule six i didn't rule controls controls amendment appliance district court's order denying the motion to compel arbitration mr stanwick notified the finance that he was going to proceed nevertheless with the arbitration and when i pointed out that we were not obligated to arbitrate and the district court's order he responded arbitrators no arbitration in this case has ever been we said before the aaa that's a misnomer our agreement when you look on it it's under the rules of the aaa as well as the premier to this all this other stuff it's painful but the real issue is does the small screen take away the agreement of the parties to arbitrate there have been
business has noted that means any new solution however slight in the testimony at the court the mother testified that her daughter told her that the defendant all he admitted touching her by touching her pajamas and making her touching stroke his penis he admitted that he hurt her anus and he admitted that his finger the inside about this is what i want you to watch really careful way and i don't mean to be vulgar when i show you this but during this interview when he's talking when the defendant this talking about what he did to this little girls began his hands going like this the whole time i don't know how you do that to other girls but gianna and not penetrate the  deal of discussion my counsel for the defendant that the physical exams of this little girl that were normal and i know how many cases all of us have seen and which  physical exam of a little girl is normal no matter i mean even the rape that area he was assaulted early on that any case again going back to this  gesture if this is what he's doing it's not surprising that there's no evidence of damage the correct me time around injury is not an element of this offense no but more credible and that conclusion was not so on using the improbable unsatisfactoriness to justify overturning the defendant's conviction this little girl by her words