MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
first of all the ineffective assistance of counsel claim in this case is congress going on appeal because it is based on the record alone and the trial record in this case is complete enough to support that pla it shows that trial can also told the district court that it considered the grand jury testimony to be essential it needed it for cross examination and it also shows that eighty you know probably we can defer it but maybe the question is this thing all across the board i don't get the problem first of all the statement isn't really a case that statement but we have an orderly system and when a district court makes a ruling their ruling can be challenge on appeal it was objected to in a timely fashion in the district court to give the district court the opportunity to think i have a gift but i'm fortunate enough to have a lot of the circuit on my side when it says that when you don't object in a timely fashion to a pretrial ruling you cannot turn around and object to that ruling for the first time on appeal so for that reason because the district court made the ruling in the government never ever objected at the time it is dense that material the second reason the material is because the government told the remotely helpful to the defense wrong because every bit of it simply says these two witnesses previously identified then a fine first of all he didn't want to use it and he made a rule twenty nine motions saying that his client was prejudice because he didn't have it in a timely fashion wasn't able to do that but here's the implication of what you're saying in the state of california they have that were made and therefore you can't compare that with discrepancies that may come up at the time of trial what you're saying in effect is that every time the women are hearing in a criminal case in the state of california it's perfectly acceptable to prevent  seeing the transcript and impeaching percipient witnesses with contradictions between their original statements and their statements in trial the whole purpose of the jencks tactic is to allow that and that was frustrated here and what the government did was they did an end run the the joint success when every second when this makes a statement and that's presented to the grand jury and then never serving a witness testifies during the trial the judge that's changed chance but he didn't have the opportunity to do that yeah i understand that you and i see this very very differently and my feeling is that if you allow the government to start doing in effect here say grand jury hearings where they
them yes we have two different legal issues here sure  that's what we're doing and at that point because there was a stipulation i think the fact that it was in that context that this stimulation is not really i didn't mean to minimize their side dish today but no it's not like everybody was agreeing with me on that point but i i think the record even though it gets very lengthy doesn't show those that particular kind of thing the matter the matter of sufficient progress has to go back to the previous findings or stipulation to whatever it would be since  stop eating your children or start them or whatever since that wasn't part of the picture anyway it's something i find a bit there's not enough  think you should get but there is no allegation do you mr or mrs parent didn't provide necessary medical or psychological here for your children we didn't do anything to them or what's sufficient to west sufficient progress since since if i'm right that there is no specific misconduct except maybe not right providing enough emotional support without any specification used to power they were not to supply that emotional support of they i usually get some counseling to do that all the counseling that was recommended to them and specific letter reviews but there certainly was testimony and they had it and maybe they're just to remember that it was there but i concede that they did not do all the counseling or do all the business should some of the psychological people have recommended that they do so whether they're specifically sent a letter saying they weren't going to do it they did they did not do everything that was recommended
business there today you misbehave and now we're going to have a hearing and now you're going to hear a written decision imaging my room of the king based on a serious violation
and his need unmet needs and that he was grabbed while there were a group of officers in the holding cell and he was grabbed in this whole incident started inside the holding cell i was before i watched the video tape concerned as to why there wasn't any proper of evidence from anybody other than the officers inside the holding cell because this comes down to his word against officials that were here by of the condition was what about the nurse for example well first of all  you know i got whacked upside the head and whatever and there's no sign of injury or whatever there are objective there's objective evidence of injury and to say well it's only his word against the cops it's always the individual against the one or more officers the question is whether that kid started out on a on a credibility issue and you're saying well just the used it's only his word against all the officers  d i am concerned that there's no you know no problem for from the other people in the holding cell but i don't know the circumstances of why that's missing but i still interested in why you suggest the word as somebody who clearly suffered injuries want to tell us that there's no issue when he says one thing and i say because of the circumstances that are presented and you have to look at again you don't look at it for twenty twenty hindsight looking from from the high side of the ok thank you recall that there was anything specific to not providing medical care other than the fact that when when violations of rights are taken place they weren't being adequately with it in a feel your money all claiming the assuming that was
wouldn't the trial judge he was in his discretion to look at the videotape look at how he's responding to questions and say hey it's official well i think we will we're going to get it was an error it was the wrong decision i mean you have t second statement is there and there are cases that suggest that if a person is in pain that they would be more apt to give a statement or are the cases that you would like cases where  absolutely and of course with no concession that any of the statements were not properly admitted and that on that point i also want to note that it's not a dominoes effect you know if you look at the videotape statement and should this court find that if it was involuntary statements in this case were just a little piece of the evidence against the defendant i mean here you get one of the victims margaret testifying she positively pointed to the defendant and said that's the man that did all of the stuff to me ready when he was found in that garage and again like i said there was five evidence i mean the evidence again aside from the first statements simply overwhelming and this is a case where incriminates the time period that after he was captured on to the time that he gave the videotaped statement so it was like he was given one major dose and then you did you should look at just like the trial failed to the testimony of the registered nurse it consistent with the medical evidence that he stabbed her several times i mean he said he tried to minimize why he did this to margaret and he said well she came at me first she with me with a hammer but  yes he was in pain he had his eyes shut but as he admitted he liked to talk while his eyes were shut and as you will see on the video is as rich as he was giving great detail about what happened conversations what happened at the school
consistently held that under a modified categorical approach it does not look to the facts underlying a conviction to determine whether someone's been convicted of an aggravated felony it was to the statute into the record of conviction to determine if the defendant was actually convicted of or actually is that you know this whole discussion about kind of like this process of elimination i mean the whole i mean beyond the notable crimes but i mean it also doesn't prove i mean it doesn't meet the burden of the government's burden of proof i mean
section one fifteen dash ten procedure and hearing in this case hire a defendant just conceded the fact that most of the statements coming through defense counsel questioning and not through the state in fact in his opening three defendant only separate reasons for which the testimony relating to the conversation between the as enemy and three reasons why those the statements were admissible bears defense counsel opened the door to such testimony during  honor however there was a sidebar discussion where at the same had injected to a portion of defendants of her defense counsel's opening statements because defense counsel was attempting to bring and some information that would be protected  testimony of the conversation between the enemy and then became admissible to refute those allegations of fabrication which is the second reason why this testimony became unmissable nonu say because it was offered not for the truth of the matter is s hearsay purpose because you refuting an allegation as opposed to saying this is what happened in this saying this is what happened you're saying she wasn't lying these are the reasons why she wasn't my mary were credible crackdown  be defended and cannot proceed to trial and then later complain on appeal that those types of issues were with that but that was a running play in minutes when the venue or excuse me when defense counsel asked for the stimulation and asked for the video to be played back complaining on the complaining about it on appeal would constitute invited err i cannot be the basis for dependence on assignments appear in this case yes it was designed to for due process issues or to excuse me it was designed to protect the process however in this case to say clearly deny an interest be using hearsay statements and
amendments to section forty two which were not mentioned enforcement tano that that that statutory construction should be reconsidered specifically in two thousand and two forty two that that should that the this issue should be reconsidered in light of the two thousand and two men you know i just do it frankly seems somewhat strange that congress really felt that forty two was involved and as far as going to border inspectors have a good faith basis to conduct their search which is a subjective inquiry we're not saying we have to have objection objective reasonable suspicion just simply a very mild low threshold good faith basis to conduct assertion that the that these reasonable means to  ectuate whatever good faith basis that they have that's not really asking for all that much obviously when congress inserted this particular amendment and that and that started drawing attention to section forty two there was a concern about racial profiling and i think in all out of you know nine eleven but there was concern that there would be officers that perhaps not acting in good faith or using certain racial profiling tactics would be singling out certain people and i think that the requests of that were making which is a very low threshold is that in order to avoid things like racial profiling that at least the inspectors have a good faith basis in conducting the search so that for example one of the going off to a foreign office or not to have to you know if an  say every fifth vehicle for a routine inspection but that was ok and i agree with that but when you're talking about sort of a more intrusive you know somewhat non hunting search such as dismantling the gas tank which can you know as i said you know i really think this is a modest request now because we're talking a lot of fish a litigation you know frankly i think the government probably in this case could have proved that the officer had a good faith basis to take down the gas tank  but because the government is not a lot on that position it's all now i think the case should be remanded under johnson i think that's the appropriate inquiry for a hearing and for the district court to make findings in the first instance as to whether the inspector had a good faith basis to conduct the search there is that congress intends that when officers are conducting border searches that they're going to do them in good faith and if they're going to use reasonable means wealth actuating the search that would seem to be the implication of that language and that's our argument as to why this new statutory
right but the action here the complaint that was filed it's clearly a complaint for equitable relief under a recess how did how did anything that happened thereafter is granted to the point in the case i don't know that's the original intent or whether it's what happened when the letter was sent and the natural judgment was entered i mean one thing going against  your side of the argument is that that letter that was sent asked for a judgment in a certain amount never referred to an equitable never referred to rule sixty and her what she said was recover th equitable really i mean my agreement rather than a personal judgment well the complaint listed as you mentioned before judge and the complaint only asked for an equitable by agreement settlement talks broke down that we realized ok we're going to have to figure out how to enforce this and that that's the time that we've been back to the court and said judge there was a missed you know eat what happened is the original judgment did a district judge has discretion to invoke rule sixty to resolve any ambiguity and the water to more clearly reflect contemporary contemporaneous intent were to ensure that the court's purpose was fully implemented i'm just not sure unwise at the time and what was accepted not just by the circuit in funk but also five other circuits at the time was that we knew had an equitable being by agreement over property and that property argument is that you can't just pursue a right to judgment of the first instance in a case like this but when you can do is when you're getting the runaround in attempting to execute order and we then the court retains the equitable powers to help you something that was avail
have believed was legal that the claimant do or should have known they were breaking the law ironically the supreme court in all of the two uses the identical analysis and language the difference is that district court stop sense to the case cited here for the first time today one argument raised for the first time in the reply brief is that qualified immunity cannot be determined on the basis of the complaint because counsel alleged the subject of bad faith and intentional disregard in addition to the complaint something else was submitted to the district court which would demonstrate that the sense of qualified immunity applies here except the law was not clearly established i don't
necessary to constitute a crime of violence must actually be violent in nature and under four degree assault statute there is doesn't need to actually involve any violence the district court in this case relied on their modified categorical approach what exactly i know that there's some you're going to look at the record a little bit differently here but what exactly was in the broadest sense before submit that just because that's referenced in the judgment doesn't mean that it is part of the court records and part of the judicially noticeable documents there is no finding by the date the district court that they rel any indication that anything is stapled to it now i've got this probable cause statement that there are plenty of pages later in the excerpt that says exactly what he was accused of doing  even so our question is that whether that may be simply a way of referencing the incident number in this case unlike this court's decision in her hand history and recently decided my type did not stipulate during his the court my name is jane kirk and i'm hearing on behalf of the government on the issue of taylor and what we look at in the record if it is all over the board actually it doesn't say what it's supposed to be probable cause or as of probable cause for arrest or for complaint or what i believe for arrest for arrest yes there is any case that says that under the modified categorical approach you can use a police report
record there's a short period of time for oral argument but what happens in oral argument is if you would change ends to hear how we react to the briefs and what questions we have in our mind that you ma down to one thing which is a police officer asking someone to stand outside a forty foot marked off area until the crew has left and finish their work he didn't restrain him crying any of the way you manufacture one by a second affidavit and by that second affidavit which was drafted and filed after the officers filed for summary judgment that second affidavit says that the work stopped prior to him sitting on the stump in refusing to leave the work site and he does so in an attempt to say this is an act of work site however that is contradicted by the plaintiff's deposition testimony and two separate depositions and it's contradicted by the first affidavit that the plaintiff filed saying that it was extremely noisy when he went over to sit on the stump and that he had to yell actually out the workers  to overcome the noise so i would suggest to the court that that's an improper way to avoid summary judgment is to later on file an affidavit that contradicts an earlier affidavit in sta between them as to their respective property rights for example two people dealt with the line runs down through the property how does the police officer come in and side from one side over the other  rather than just hiring the police to force their version of the contractual or property dispute between the parties because i think in this case what in store was doing was they were arguing about what they were allowed to what he said but i don't think that's what he says i think what he says is that he had a dispute with n star about what should because they only hired the police to keep the plaintiff away from them to keep them out of the  couldn't he get his own officer who come in and say don't cut that tree because that's not what the police were asked to do in this case i understand the hypothetical perspective is a different situation here here the police are just asked to keep of that crime and why was it might appear violated here because the police have the authority to keep somebody out of an active dangerous work zone in this case it was violated when the officers gave him ask facts of this case the tree was already he wasn't there there are no facts there is no evidence that he was protesting any certain or specific tree he came back later after making calls and emails according to him he came back and saw that this tree was hot correct your honor and the dispute undisputed evidence in the record is that just in general he was upset about the clear cutting and scope nothing specific about why does that matter though i don't  think that's the reason to me that's the force of the question to you i think that's a broader certainly a broader factual circumstances proposition these officers faced and they were there to make sure that
for the in so far as it would prove that he is i'm a told to the family that is suffering this persecution in uganda now that's an arbitrary decision there was no explanation given for why that would be done i thought that appropriate name his name is really my total now on the immigration judge had a copy of his birth certificate at five fifty showing that name y and whether that has an impact on our review that is that the judge never he ever actually gave his prosecution strike because the judge that as i understand just said no i'm asylum application a pass book savings account with his photograph of the younger stage in my showing that i am the board of the immigration appeals seemed to accept that those documents might in fact establish his identity but officials the state of california doctors who were there to assist them walk body with the ark waga earth yak waga why isn't that substantial evidence on the record as a whole that wire in this case and when he recognized that he might be deported to his country when he was placed in removal proceedings he reveals his true name and his testimony was not internally your honor that needs very well have been as a force of habit after years in this country of having been called to you and referred by that name it may very well be your honor the asked the court saying that a refugee will sometimes misrepresents his identity in fleeing persecution week the court here would require that y got out when the judge said you don't have an asylum application before us here i counsel thank you examined on it and have the i j a evaluate his credibility on his entire story instead of on this small piece but is there anything sponsored and in which this has happened in which it's been approved to just say i'm not going to listen to your story never let him put the evidence put in not just words on all the government would argue that that there is substantial evidence to support the immigration judge and the board's finding and that that five hundred is under the deferential
three in which he explains that this particular title the bill of rights which is title one of the act was proposed to during a particular session of congress such that it does not receive conference review or detail  that the reference to copy was in a prior version of a separate section that should not be read to effective read under the protections offered in this particular section now i also recognize that section want to demonstrate that congress knew the is the right distribution and second is the right inspection on the one hand unions are required to distribute the collective bargaining agreements to employees whose rights are directly affected by those agreements on the other it requires the unions to make a for inspection of all of those collective bargaining agreements there is no burden placed on the union and indeed the union identifies not here they were infringed with the unions internal governance by allowing no taking the union employers so that she could then gauge and negotiations and subsequent rounds of negotiations for four years and then propose terms that she believed would be more favorable to her and her coworkers and that was exactly infinite number of collective bargaining agreements well there's only a single membership list that would be subject to inspection is the fact that congress clearly intended to carefully circumscribe the right to inspect under section four a one c is single instruction digest all of the contents for these reasons i urge the court to reverse the district court's restrictive interpretation of the