MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
authorities for this i believe that the cases aside drawn through it and or indeed controlling authority because what they all is that evidence is only suppressed when they prevent the information from being presented to defense and there is nothing directly to indicate that the same information cannot be presented to the fact finder the same two young girls can testify alok they can present the same information they could even review the tape before they testify there's nothing preventing that there's nothing preventing information from being fair now the state is grieved does it for the case nature of this type of evidence that's basically saying we're talking about the same information because after all what is corroborative evidence it means the same evidence that the same information is being presented but is being as between the time of the abuse and the time trial for videotaping it would help preserve that because presumably because it would still be read it on the child's mind right  but we don't have here we don't have a record of the offenses being taken place we have a we have our hoardings of the alleged victims relating what they allege happened to them they ca interview but did the good goes on to say i don't know how many times the girl spoke about i don't know who they spoke to i don't know what they said when they talked about it and without that i officer or them police officer that she see that made the statement do why couldn't it with that police officer on so for the state to argue well we have no power to introduce more of this evidence i think is  the other children i said to them you know we have none of this and that was the core problem in this case and why i think that this case is controlled by cases like i k t f where the
breakdown in the relationship between tiffany hall and her attorney we have a petition that stand with no prejudice allegations spike in fact in this hall is readily available to swear to things including being in court at various times it didn't need to be an a defendant on whether this court needs to look at her culpable negligence certainly there was an issue that has friends in it for the trial court will be a regional  defendant the record also shows defendant requested to be placed on a current restrictions and she claims there were threats made against her but certainly not all of these restrictions were related to threats and these written report furnished to you and that is because you've got to do the under supreme court rule for thirteen to turn all of that to the state and that's really getting to the heart of this entire to say i understand you doing the regulation would be very you make your written report please give me a call so we can discuss this and i see justice cates smiling or getting at the heart of this issue for frustration and receiving all the counseling knows that she is constantly dealing with her mental health and trying to get better and trying to just get to the point where she can live in general population and so i think where the foreign minister is not ordinary and legends but
to fourteen no one does not pose a temporal barrier if the defendant clearly should have prevailed in the and you're proposing this for any any on any basis it's not just speedy trial you're saying that under any circumstances on the right
probable cause with back then and that's often what troopers need to do that's what the basis of qualified immunity as for a temporary seizure of the camera this temporary seizure of this camera and the memory card was reasonable given the circumstances that he close in that it's self are not a very easy thing to destroy he was saying that the actual push of one single button on that particular camera could have been good and at least that the actual evidence of the scene which is a trooper under the circumstances with reason to believe that he was violating the constitution when he sees the camera and and the well the fact is undisputed is that he obtained permission and advice from the prosecuting attorney
the reply brief to me the fact that he accepted the plea as soon as he learned that it was off the table shows where his mindset was this was and for forty twenty the counteroffer is that he made during the  the january thirty one entry in the february seventh interval show he was excited about the possibility of released on his birthday which was february eleventh the last day so all these things in the record then wanted to get out of his birth thing that's pretty clear because the first lawyer floated that by and that resonated with and that stuck so he's thinking how can i get out of my birthday you know least going to have a chance to get my birthday in for eleven and the reason i think that there was not a deal here is that mr mccutcheon was a fairly aggressive negotiator i mean he eventually wanted to get  find out that is contractor's license wasn't going to be impacted he wanted to see if you could get rid of probation and and but the problem is he was well he did but the problem is if you don't know what the parameters of the game are he would meet with temper that aggressiveness if he knew that number one he was looking at seventeen years if he didn't cut a deal automatically converts to a misdemeanor so if we got what we're asking for here it's reinstatement of the last credit for time served october to put him back to the status quo will convert to a misdemeanor he'll get rid of this right he can't get his nine years back but that's all the law can give them at this point so that's what we're asking for the cases and the  preponderance so in deciding whether or not it was an unreasonable state through the nation we've got all this evidence or this shows that he wasn't that bargain he wanted to make a deal but on the the counteroffers on one thirty ninety seven and two eleven ninety seven each of which is inconsistent with not being immutable the one thirty one ninety seven released discussion in the record medical records asking for a current he was always paying to make a deal that he was always saying look i just want to get out today instead of yesterday i want to get out and i want a letter that says i'm a really fine fellow or i don't want to have trial and then but if you refused to accept the dealers there's no other choice but the fact that he stated on numerous occasions to his lawyer before the fact that he didn't want to go to trial that's i was too late absolutely inconsistent and this is
to the coast guard and to the agent that he was just on about that sank and he was you know picked up from the middle of the and then doesn't the government have a right to try to  provide this case provides in a case like this more there could have been a question about knowledge with respect to the one that's how is the government supposed to predict what the defense might be or is it supposed to predict how does this issue get brought to the court in advance of the proposed four four b evidence is that even though it may comply with the two step analysis side by the government related to rodriguez cardona to prove with this evidence has special probative value that would show intent preparation now after absence of mistake it does not comply with the elements set forth in rule four zero three and i think you can read that to say that they're not arguing the defense is not arguing that it doesn't have special relevance but that how does that prove intent it sounds to me like what you're saying is proof that he intended to conspire to butt in and cocaine on this occasion by pointing out that he did so on another rely on yesterday's case very much all right so if you come back around here say and offer in a conclusion at the beginning of the case pronouncing the guy's a you to also speak with this individual my story the text messages themselves kind of support this communication between the two men and how they interact with the leaders of the conspiracy
i'm being president a committee will come to order today we are meeting to consider h r eighteen eighty one the transportation security workforce to enhancement act of two thousand and that i now recognize myself to make an opening statement if enacted h r eight hundred eighty one would ensure that all t s a workers are afforded the same whistleblower protections veteran preference collective bargaining rights and  colleagues across the department of homeland security and the federal government enjoy specifically this bill transitions the entire t s a workforce to them or to a widely accepted and well understood child five federal employee system including the general schedule effectively h r eight hundred eighty one would bring to any and t s a grand personnel experiment before we turn to the below i want to remind members how about t s a ended up with the pay for performance personnel system known as pass in addition to that i'd like to include a written statement for the record which goes in a good bit of detail outlined in that personnel system without objection that also submit for the record letters in support of this legislation from the american federation of government employees and the national treasure employees union and the eof of a o l see how i now recognize a ranking member of the outstanding job under very trying circumstances i would have to reluctant we oppose the legislation today for a number of reasons one we are proceeding to very important legislation despite the fact it was still a administrator no one has been appointed no one is waiting to be appointed and i believe to be making such a significant change as this before a director has been appointed to me  to do what this legislation is going to require them to do and in fact may end up restricting the power of the t s a and again i don't know what the rush to judgment here is on this and the second time we've judgment and i realize that this is a priority of yours but again if we are going to be fair to the administration fed to the department fed to the t s a itself i believe we are making a may submit opening statements for the record and now call of h r eight hundred eighty one the below circulated in advance and printed copies of ala bill without objection the readings are dispensed with hearing no mr king votes no it's just met mr souder mr longer and mr rogers mr rogers votes no mr mccall mr austria mr mccall mr brown mrs miller mr austria chairman on that vote there were thirteen yes and six knows that has have and the adoption of the bill is agreed to without objection a motion to reconsider is laid on the question on the floor motions as be necessary in the house to go to conference with the senate on the bill just ordered reported by this committee or on a similar senate without objection a motion is agreed to this german gentleman from new york to have it pursuant to
preventing the tenant any access to these premises to the point of changing the locks a couple of times and removing their property and undertaking major construction i mean did did your clients pay rights this case was trying to flipped on its head because from the first moment the case started it was the tenant trying to get back into possession of the property so to trust the issue concerning  an indirect simple indirect criminal contempt or not we are a man and then we set them down for hearing you have a hearing in the kitchen and so no i don't think anybody disagree with back intention because they're a crate is still entitled to due process and to show why she did not comply with that border there's still got to be a
crucial importance to the state's case here is the testimony of mr rodriguez and mr parrish's who were two people who were admitted lee in the vehicle from which the shots were fired that killed two when the committee know that it wasn't was and said no no no obviously there was none yes but there was an instruction given was there not to the jury that they are the judges of the credibility of the witnesses in other words the standard i p i objection sure i'm sorry instruction right so given that that was given and that this is really certainly the standard i p i for accomplice testimony really fine is opposed to well your susie you get you've got to judge her with caution because she's suspicious that was are two totally different things and specially here where the testimony inferences oh my whether they've established consciousness of guilt by their actions on for example ramirez getting motive on his friend they're both friends with this right now y after them laying in wait so to speak for them to leave a lot and so there's strong circumstantial evidence that we were is knew what he was getting into when he got into that car circumstantial evidence of that and considered in conjunction with the various versions of he to the police which is indicative of consciousness of guilt that is how bar that said the three of them left together in that car but here they didn't just leave from there we actors here we stopped at the mcdonald's all got out and we're discussing the damage the path we weren't they substantially cross examined their credibility was was was argued to the jury pod and the general is just as you know said the general destruction of credibility was given which we have case  suspicion and then by overemphasizing the home the state overemphasizing the value will have a light on that could lead a reasonable jury to come to the conclusion that guilt and lies might not come to that conclusion looking at the totality of the evidence isn't there a pretty good argument that there is probable cause to believe that rodriguez was involved either as a prince to or an accomplice here when he owned a th forty caliber gun he drove away from of facts and there's this shooting going on in discussion and on according to rob regan is yelling at the defendant but remember is this just in the back just enjoying his music that's completely incredible he said so even if the jury were only instructed to regarding rodriguez is there still a reasonable probability that the result of this trial could have been different that a rational jury could come to a different conclusion
behavior his lack of sleep the night he had access to nine one one two were kayla calls and says thomas is taking my baby and yes mental health issues things you have a new fight going on inside your mind between what you know and what you what you don't know the second thing is to use it he also focused on the fact responsibility or is he lying to keep the evil forces away from baby and i think the interaction between the police and randy rosen own i think tells the story the police are part of the evil argument might be one of the most important parts trial that's where he can convince somebody who might be leaning one way to go the other way when the most famous examples of what how powerful or a closing argument can be i doctor's report would require this to go before another judge and the reason there is not that i believe judged upon us could not fairly  outcome is i don't think anything that defense comes to say now which would change the change and i think thomas given the nature of the case it involves a topic are le november twentieth of two thousand and fifteen i hope we find his he's on medication designed to make him fun so i thought he only thing that bothers me about this case and i don't know what you can do with it this review you have the stimulation was that just simply that he could consider the police reports that have been filed but you could consider the experts opinion and we see if i can find what the exact stipulation was  recess to get this whole thing straightened out as to exactly what the parties were intending and then after the parties came back say this is going to be a stipulated bench trial we were stipulate that to the says you can't use the finnis exercises rights to sanity and in addition it's not altogether clear whether the rule would apply in this case the rule is that the  miranda warnings cannot be used to show cite sanity we don't have silence here we have the defendant making many different statements interspersed with the final was he had access to two previous psychiatric reports that were based on the meetings on june twenty fourth of july second when he found that he was unfit to trial but he had to look into a little more about whether he was insane rock bands and he had access to
the ownership history appears to be pretty straightforward the bookkeeping is anything but the the motels are all whole by corporate entities there are two sets of books a separat entry to offset a balance off the expenses he claimed on a schedule c which is the price of schedule on his person return there is no evidence nothing in the record would establish that the here is incredibly being received by corporation expenses being paid by corporations in the wrong standing history or reporting fact is that the i r s that was fine but knew about it it's to get back to the question of income there's no evidence that this gentleman's wealth was in any way increased to have income you need more a management means paid to john and then the matter in the absence of a personal bank account why isn't any combination of say it was nothing he said as part of the burden of proof argument here i do see something but not before marriage for free so we have here is a record which is unusual taxpayer has to prove or are you including this new point that he gave his instructions to his accountant to
stop he was not all he was ultimately charged with was driving without a license and he was charged with driving without a license after the stop had occurred and he was they searched they decided to impound the vehicle and conduct an inventory search of the vehicle and that's when they found a gun and he was ultimately charged with possession of the gun point of my question was does and doesn't the failure to stop when a police officer activates the lights and siren doesn't that provide probable cause to at least investigate reasonable suspicion to investigate why the driver is not pulling over whether i think if  it's a difficult question again all i can say is i think the court has to balance that concern and i certainly recognize that's a concern obviously don't want anarchy but only other hand that needs to be balanced against you know it was it was late at night and individuals can have safety concerns and he he pulled over at the first opportunity that he felt comfortable pulling over but he did in fact ultimately stop and it's not as if  basis to stop mr sign us the government also then cites to a couple of statutes the lucky sidewalk after he stopped and driving under the influence of course again he was not charged with  convictions that actually got promote history points supported the criminal history category it wasn't even close second of all there were nine convictions that were earlier and outside the time that could be counted for criminal i think that is something that the district court can consider i'm not sure what that was based on ice here the third thing that i would mention is this kind of had a serious alcohol problem with humidity drinking up to twelve servings of beer every single weekend the year before the requires deference to the district court decision factual decision but the ultimate decision we review the novel and usually we've got to do it deferentially house that's where well it's because of the conspiracy languaged protect
at the immigration statute says that an individual is affordable if they commit a crime involving moral turpitude quote within five years after the date of birth the real question in this case is whether or t this court should be just should reject the government's position for three reasons st does not provide a clear answer for mr routes cases and to the extent it provides guidance it supports using two thousand five as the date of admission nd the language of the statute itself does not support the quote any admission ball that the government created and relied on in deciding mr routs case the government's  tation of the act creates an unnecessary conflict with the compact of free association by causing the act to operate as a harsh penalty for hope the migrants who take advantage of the offered by the treaty we admission for five years after entry had altered the grammatical structure of the phrase in a manner that undermined the any untruth fool so by explaining how exactly toward changing the language impacted the interpretation  are you saying that th we're not saying it's impermissible for the was legal permanent residents are positioner does not get the benefit he is not a legal permanent resident so he has to be admitted every time that he comes in and so his most recent mission was june congress intended only legal permanent residents when they come into the country are not seen as seeking admission so to the extent that i didn't or is trying to in his words heather his current admission to a prior mission he doesn't get to do that according to congress and only legal permanent residents get to do that and nothing you can th if you if you somehow find that you know for this petitioner it's only the st entry that controls there is nothing to prevent the floodgates from opening well i if for the sake of argument i think we can say that it's permissible and even if it is a permissible interpretation of the statute two thousand and five should be the relevant date of admission in our case and if this court does not agree with that and it should at least remain  not squarely address how the compact of reuse oshie ation plays in at all into whether or not two thousand and five or two thousand and fifteen should be the relevant date of admission so just by doubt alone i think it's showing that the underlyin the right exactly how mindful of my time but i would like to answer your honest thank you so regarding the double interpretation of the statute i'm not sure if that's entirely the case i think really what we're asking is one believe that that is the case because all the algae locally overrule the any entry will that was present and channel and if it really you know wanted to keep that rule with the exception of adjusting the status i think the case would have been much clearer in that regard if you're honest i've no furthe
i challenge the finding could have been me then certainly she could see to shift that responsibility to are the real responsible party but if it was much more limited the circuit court proceeding if it was hearing and maybe that explains the reason or maybe that explains her addiction to file an appeal after the administrative hearings it seems to me that if she really wanted to place the responsibility on administrative finding is adequately supported by the evidence that the administrative agency heard i mean what's the difference between that in and on final judgment that by virtue of default well  and yet still be able to address the third party complaint in fact the evidence warranted if it was timely given the evidence warranted that your party was responsible for twenty percent that say that he could enter a judgment against your so that would have made it clear that that if there was going to be a resolution of any claims between the doctor and your client that it should have to be you think this year did you sure would think that that would have sounded every alarm bell in the room  if she thought that she was being you know incorrectly accused of the overbuilding when it was really p c c she put aside administrative review and if the circuit court had agreed with her and she could not hold this money she decided to live with the agency position to a detriment but she doesn't let any such affirmative action just alleges that we did nothing which is actually so because of that there was no genuine issue of material fact regarding whether we took an affirmative act that she relied on there was nothing that we retract