MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
in the record come the record six ten six twelve shows there is a no other possible explanation that the jury was prevented from hearing about because of the drop words in correct ruling during the trial the st that didn't mention with their testimony they found them guilty where they were given only one possible explanation for the physical evidence that was interest between jacob and m w there was all there another explanation for the physical evidence
the st half of all those wouldn't be evident no matter what yes i mean you hear talk about fleeing i assume it's a knowledge that he must have decided i mean description was an individual one for committed the crime or do was there no testimony giving us some insight into her thing right there was  sure yeah we just don't know bolt's thinking why she thought good of this fellow bicycle leave could be the suspect even though the victim reported the individual what on
twenty five years ago when he was barely eighteen years old mr look asthma waived his right to a jury trial and was convicted of second degree murder after a one hour bench trial that involved only two unprepared witnesses  the excuse me to apply to aliens with three nine hundred eighty eight convictions but the board completely failed to apply the full and graph analysis and never went to the next step and found that that section was ambiguous they didn't find that congress had forty one eight but there is nothing saying that doesn't address the issue of whether that the current language can be retroactively applied that's a separate issue underlying i'm not understand what you're saying if the language if the language that you want to incorporate  section seventy three forty four b right and our argument is that well it's two parts the most important part is that there's been no statute in acting in acted since then that provided with unambiguous you know language language i mean it's not providing an ambiguous claire it's not providing with unambiguous clarity that congress has intended to write to retroactively apply the aggravated felony ground and the board has found it ambiguous the second circuit has found it and begin as can analyze the different statutes to be honest with you i don't know if the language is exactly the same as this one but it's a different statute and this court has not yet to address the ambiguity of the statute but i underlying graph i mean you need to move on to the second step this is ambiguous and there's clearly about two activist facts here because mr denning wait is that mean this really does my weight his right to a jury trial in reliance on the fact that you know convicted he would not be deport e he also had a vested right in his permanent residency that he was deprived of and he also there was new legal consequences attached to his underlying crime and you know you don't need to show reliance you don't need to show that he relied on  really what the question is here the operational provision says you're moving if you're an aggravated felony but that doesn't mean anything standing by itself to understand what that term means we have to go to the definition in the definition specifically process question with respect to immigration legislation and what you call being first found was that yes this is did make this alien removal deportable for defense despite the fact that the yelling would not previously have been the portables so i would disagree that that c you have the language in three twenty one b as well indicating and this court said an era gone that that that that provision frequency means that the attorney general could apply it in all cases in immigration proceedings which this course would be one of those cases
police lap reasonable suspicion they cannot approach a citizen who was acting in a community caretaking function but course that's not true an officer mean prose and he says it is and ask questions so long as he doesn't convey even if the officer's higher speed coming up behind him was good but for a lot of the defendants decision to stop his car that doesn't mean that the officer stopped him it doesn't mean that the officer effected a
d because of his bald public defender that his current defense counsel had never shown it and he stated that he did not get to see all the other he's this is a case where there are in line with this is there was no murder weapon recovered and there was no you know evidence and testimony the trial for her son next the direct testimony of the state but an expert in firearms gamble concerning a twenty two caliber semiautomatic pistol and thirty two in my twenty two caliber gun and i was just i just wanted to put him on notice about that so it actually helps the defendant provide an alternate theory to the state's theory which is he was  argument is if we want to get to the bottom of knowing what exactly was the purpose of this phone call i'm a defendant and what was behind it we have to know of twenty two caliber gun finally the last piece of challenge
at the piano with and donovan and this lovely group back here is the bell is from the senior center in belmont we have a selection of six songs for you the first one is going to be when you're smiling it's going to be done by by to benson who is one of our favorite singers when i was asked to use this song i was trying to think of who would do it right  every time she smile as she sings she's makes everybody smile so on and on we go the next election is going to be i have a dream from the hit  the next song is a dream is a wish i had makes is from the disney movie cinderella end last election is going to be climb every mountain from abroad jews and hammerstein the sound the music in harriet leave us in is going to sing really
little boy  she brought the water
control of the area where why the defendant was not in trial on and while that could be considered as consciousness of guilt is not enough to show that at the time you lived there tonics were inside the hotel that he had knowledge evidence that was used to convict him in a trial the only question for the review in court is whether any rational tried or effect could have found the audience in the offense beyond a reasonable doubt in making this determination the reviewer must look at all of the evidence  who knows how long this will continue you know paying in cash each and every night so that i i don't think there's any reason with the speed here that the the defendant rented the premises where the trucks were found and that by itself is enough to show immediate exactly who it belongs to he says it's my ego's so i think his words are important and they think i think the circumstances of that steamer are also important he doesn't make this statement in the hotel room when he's there with the important but that's not all we have only have to rely on that as well we also have substantial evidence of consciousness of guilt in this case we have the evidence that independent through his phone across the room one of the investigators  delayed telling the officers that he did not speak english until after his arrest until after he knew he was in trouble and i think the timing really is more than a little suspicious while the investigators are in the room he never tells investigators that finish is probably his first language but just because the defendant prefers spanish doesn't mean he doesn't understand english third there are people who speak more inches or even understand another is very different than the case in terms of knowledge oh regarding the issue that it was showing consciousness of guilt the defendant didn't seize didn't speak english well until
all right let's go ahead
question before the court when you look at tit little bit hard but originally
intoxication so i guess occasion no one sees the defendant drive the s u v indeed reno is the only witness who sees a driver he can identify the defendant in court and he gives a description that varies greatly on from the defendant he says the driver is heavy set five foot nine to six feet tall the defendant is five four and weighs one hundred thirty pounds so that doesn't matter she said the driver doesn't have facial hair the defend she obviously has some connection to the car which would explain why some of his belongings would be in it and obviously there's there's arguments on both science questions but really essentially that we're asking we're asking for the jury there's no evidence how much he was drinking no evidence if it was before or after the accident and ends and that there was an accident obviously but accidents can and do occur when people aren't treating this was at the problem is that the jury heard it well even if the defense attorney had objected and asked for an appropriate structure the jurors would have h so you know i just don't know you have to look at they have an injury that is for the jury with but i think they found certainly that there was there was sufficient evidence even with the mistakes
in and they got down to negotiating and there were just a few pieces one and then they decided not to go ahead test well that was during the rally runner that was  accidental played by the state a limited structure could have taken care of well i think that proves too much because if a living instruction could be here or the mission or whatever tool is predicting that the jury didn't leave issue the issue here is not what's on the tape the issue here is improper limon a ruling by the or they said that this defendant could be impeached not only with prior inconsistent statements
regulation is not not followed i do think it's important to make it clear what we're talking about here is not the sort of arrest warrant that is contemplated by payton it is an police was a lie it's a word that people in the general public understand as people law enforcement officials basically that the testimony actually was that in addition to being that designated that way each of them had some sort of evidence that he was standing as underwear there is evidence that before they left he did more clothes but it's december it was cold and rainy outside the record shows there's no evidence in the record that he was standing there in his underwear and trial was was not a means of identification sufficient to identify a particular individual and i think the record lies that the statute is clear that the name of the date of birth constitutes means of identification and all the evidence at the trial
while there was some dripping in this one or whatever but in this case against roxanne fancher the defendant my client is dating woman they were offering game so there was drunkenness they drank food water they find out that  no are you saying read yes she was responding very clearly the only way that she could now the senate
moneybags nd you're saying the trial judge did not intend for it to be a life sentence however because he does not say what these cases have said you need to say we're going to do you want us to send you back right you just said the trial judge did not intend that you yourself guess the judge did not intend a life sentence but because we have not he has not shown the proper
evidence could be so strong the argument could be made the result would have been the same even if your training is there is that something that enters into the mix or i think those over the five fees that i think really got away with this case flipped a coin or other times doesn't really me and considering the fact that the poor other times there was an attorney present who represented his interests but in this instance there was none and considering that we should put it another way we presume that defendants know the law because they're told what it is because it's contained in the statutes rules a slow and of the rules of such forth what their rights are are hollow then they're put in a position where they could easily be prejudiced by having virtually no defense at all and that's what happened here if you accept the fact that there was no attorney he was not given notice that there was not going to be an attorney there was no border entered by the court ordering  withdrawal or the order of the role and this man this person was put in a position where he was totally in the dark he was ignorant of the fact that the attorney who was supposed to be there representing him like he did before previous games would not be there to at least test the case that the state presented and integrity of the system is called question and i'd like you to comment on how you think that the integrity of the system has not been compromised by the scenario of events that took place  there was really no evidence to the contrary that there was no evidence of finality there there was not let me ask you this about as you can tell i'm really hung up on the rule here counsel to do with the attorney client relationship and we have an attorney here who says ok you vacated it i'm done fuck you mean how do we question the conduct of the  trial counsel who is ready willing and able and ignores his or her obligation under the rules there are i mean i appreciate that's a little bit outside the box here b it's it's part and parcel i mean you represent a client you've taken on that appointment or you've been retained when that relationship ends you have certain obligations know even if the trial judge doesn't him for all these dates in between but within twenty six twenty seven twenty whatever days after this event takes place defendant is not only aware of it but takes affirmative action to try to to the vacation of his appointment on the day of trial if he hasn't sent notice that he is no longer the attorney of record wherein the defendant failed to appear and his attorney withdrew or was told his appointment was vacated on the day of trial i did not
she presented with a cane but i don't think it's needed but he didn't do that all we have is is that the kid is medically necessary and was prescribed to her and there's no current contradiction in the record that the pain is no longer  total and then it goes on can the with normal breaks can the individual stand and or walk right now the first says less than two hours and an eight hour workday say she can walk for up to three for two to three hours in an eight hour day but suddenly in those she's not ambulating  in your hypothetical evaluation of what jobs are available factor in the shoes we're walking with a cane not the shoes just somebody who can stand up and at any given  moment walk expeditiously and you're out of the room without the cane i can tell you we've got people on this court judges who have to emulate with a cane because of hip surgery and i can tell you they would feel very work may be available but whether as a group calls for total range of sedentary work is available and we have an incomplete medical record in that sentence and that's what check off the next one of the next three boxes or he writes separately so hours provide an explanation of the pro fight precise limitation opined below now does that direct him into check if you check box one would be there and check box for if i may just very briefly
und she said where is your evidence of why she told this horrible story you haven't heard any evidence of it because the off coming back to that i think i think that it all comes back to the fact that they were not properly questioned at the beginning they did not have adequate understanding of what the burden of proof was who had the the burden of presenting the evidence they did
i'm a little puzzled as well i mean your point about the substantial evidence is clear but if you look at the b r d opinion here the ground cited by the b i a was  china at the beginning of two to keep it but later i find that it's impossible what if we thought what if what if we were convinced that the the i g is just flat wrong on this one or we still he explains that the boarding card which is the only evidence of her actual transits in the united states or in another person's name the hotel receipt is it does not determine that she traveled to the united states it just shows that she may have stayed  justice ok what what what level of absurdity would we have to reach to give mr a station well let's just say that the i j a just said i don't like this person she it in a discretionary situation here or are we still without your stiction according to government a and upon which the idea that based decisions are really peculiar for example he said that she's not a christian because she couldn't say what happened between the new and the old testament can you tell me through one after another there is arguing about the two procedures regarding the abortion she gave an explanation there was no discredit it completely yet there were medical for the decision she explained that you have the issue of the documents that not all the documents were taken from her just some of them you have the issue of the stamps in the hospital
the case that is i think most on point but here we don't have an isolated incident your honor we have the government soldiers coming into his office killing his family member and  political associates and after that also continue to set his family which which which prompted them to leave themselves so i think i wouldn't characterize this as an isolated incident and i think one has to  view the suffering that he encountered in the context of what was going on in the congo and mr de you had submitted numerous sensory conditions reports to demonstrate that people in his position particularly when he was a leader of the believes that it was a threat to him because he was told so as this court just noted he was told so why is uncle who heard that from a rd party neighbor that presidential soldiers were the ones who conducted the attack and were looking for him the gorillas were searching for him they couldn't find him so they said it harmed his family they assaulted by those parents they later rounded up a bunch of people in the town square and they publicly executed half a dozen individuals including the british airways fellow council members and his supervisor so the harm in that case was much more severe than what we have here where we don't have a threat and even as you are suggestive if you managed we were to assume which we can't on this record relief under the convention against torture in this case if you had the burden to again show a particular as risk a future torture under the more likely that all standard and for the same reasons already  i j a had found that the different levels of hearsay pose a problem could have allowed me to tell you to prevent additional evidence could have been in the form of a neighbor testimony or the uncle uncle testimony or other kind of
inappropriate touching despite the fact that no credible right had been made and preying on the republican psychological difficulties these two women that over the course of five days by using a good cop bad cop routine issue like for example years ago nobody recognized battered wife syndrome as an emotional impact such that you know the defense could be made and over the years battered wife syndrome is now appreciate there's evidence presented in this case that the defendant made a statement it's a t v to determine whether he made the statement and how much we need to give that statement and in doing so you should consider all the circumstances under which the statement was made worse to that effect you know correct so so doesn't this testimony from the psychologist go to the circumstances under which he confessed when he would knock on the door the all police department  does ability that would make him more likely perhaps have no real low i q or depression or bipolar and i mean he doesn't say anything about what that psychological makeup ye raised by the defendant that he was not able to present a defense of the result of these the series of truck court rulings work he got to get on the stand and tell this totally fantastic sounding story ok and he didn't get to call any witnesses to corroborate that there was any truth to it even when he's going to cycle the saying he was susceptible to this kind of thing he's always got witnesses who you know could testify to the mother in law doing similar type of things to other people and so forth and so you know he does doesn't mean you have a right to present some evidence to corroborate what he is defense
and so why are you arguing that somehow we need to look to what the plea offer was or are the discussions at the
suspension of the court's station in this case through no fault of his own mr cheetahs never learns that he was placed in deportation proceedings back in one thousand nine hundred four he was never served with an order to show cause no responsible adult known or right right and that may be sufficient to make out a finding that the start time or should not apply in this case mr cheaters was served eleven years after he entered the country in two thousand and one and that he should be pursued should be permitted to proceed on the merits of his application for relief which is a very not the government these are anything in the evidence that shows just what kind of a dwelling this was no no no and that's part of the issue as far as the petitioners responsibility to re a responsible person usually think of somebody who's when they serve sort of like they are they go to the door and somebody will answer the door of that apartment someone who lives there it's a reasonable presumption or they go to the managing editor but he does he  there may not have been proper service that there was a question by the immigration judge whether as to whether there may have been service but that ultimately the order shows that the immigration judge well only decided to having a hearing that day so they didn't have the application your honor unfortunately the record does not provide information as to why the immigration service did not resent that evidence at that time but what we do know is honor because he actually did take in a different way but he still provided the information to rebut and the immigration judge consistent with the rye had stated well you need
after the criminal calendar but on this particular occasion i'm not sure and from this particular judge i'm not sure i'd like your honor briefly to focus on the application of aggravated assault violent effect the judge and that was after he made a discussion of the conflict between the defendant three publicly testimony from the defendant and what he told the probation officer in fact since it's going to count that was not there that day of standing counsel and he even made mention of fact you obviously finding that the defendant had the requisite intent to it but it was clearly understood and presented by the government that he was still intoxicated at the time of the arrest and i think agents had to wait several hours before reading his miranda rights because they were so concerned about his level of intoxication
but that would be reasonable fine your honor and if that were the case then that would be a result finding that were based on permissible reasons the three reasons given argued by the government that were given by the immigration judges are not legitimate sitting somehow that if someone were able to get some kind of educational opportunity that they possibly couldn't be persecuted or if they got a good job they can be persecuted in fact the interest is true if someone had a high paying job and were visible to the public and would they would be an had was was good solid employment in guatemala as well that's true and we would agree that it is good solid employment but however that doesn't have anything to do its face i can gesture to that somehow some kind of false correlation that if you have a