MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
and there was a subsequent accuracy test within sixty two days then we got onto the d c s accuracy tests have been done in a timely manner meaning nothing more than sixty two days have passed since the last that in two thousand and seven it was immediately on in the last section that says it's time if it's been within to check within sixty two days prior to the subject test before the so basically our argument is that looking at the plain language and even going into any probing behind the plain language which i would say is not necessary even if you do the only evidence we case and if you look at chrome you will see that they found the foundation was properly set when there was no testimony by the subsequent test what happened here was and also section to the east in it doesn't have the application where it was intended to apply is for hearings that would take place before the sixty two days have been previous by case law it would be and we all know going back thirty six years that there's been a body of law that there is requirement for before the end after certification used to be thirty days apart then it became forty five the opportunity review science underlying this essentially that's what the point of the sixty two day and his checks are before and after the need to book and to create the presumption of accuracy between those two and this is no different to that i don't know if i can cite existed with you know particular it's a law or otherwise but science does require in this field and i wish i could give you citation for that before and afters what's case law that says you must have it before and after as i said there are some cases that say in this is we have to check before and check after none of this is say if there had not been a check after that it would be no foundation n rebut the presumption that it is yet another section which says to ensure accuracy the continued accuracy of the equipment it must be tested not less than sixty two days so i'm raising that to rebut the presumption question is at the language how it got in different rebuttable presumption why is the other sections deficient too but that presumption when the facts clearly show it was not tested at least every sixty two day they speak of the time in this and it says now more than sixty days have passed since the prior one and i think to go back to from the hypothetical just mclaren asked on a console regarding whether something was in test new one test and it comes up with a number for the acceleration factor expansion of the universe that's wonderful but if you don't if you cannot repeat the experiment and
the retailer in the situation of an assignment isn't entitled at that point to the refund rate that's right so back to the question of windfall i mean the department then does not have
devilish by the legislature established by the statute they have to believe that it is a claim for testing has to be heatley frivolous before a trial we're in say no we're not going to give the defendant that re review of the application of the law protects the remedial nature of this statute would we be the first court also there is this is clearly different from the post conviction stanchions in its remedial needs here and it is much lower standard of proof so anythin to the examiner has discretion to run a print and test by that process was one examiners who were running prints that maybe didn't meet these standards or get in trouble with their intent by a long shot but she eventually now is and she was asked the question by the prosecutor brought by mr scott would submit in this bread violates the illinois avis guidelines and he's expecting yes it would but he got i can't tell you that because it's up to the examiners discretion i mean they need it there's some guidelines that we follow but in the end  that's the same argument the state made in the recent pursley case with ballistics testing that you know we had to go to trial that that case i think is a far weaker pays for one sixteen days to test in this and then you have to do a side by side visual examination comparison on the screen and if you see something that seems to match then you get the original but th quality late that was you know and even mr hartley said you know i have discretion but they're usually has to be something to make up or you know if you don't have sufficient points and there's something else in the print and you can you're going to generate generate are just going to be you're wasting time and also the bigger the database is you know you might find something that looks similar but that's the mayfield effect and of course moses is very familiar with app having you know his no error rate was the only evidence in the record you know and it's a pretty well publicized case too and that was the problem with it he came up to me guild's name came up on this search and the larger the database and keeps growing you know in growing you might hit somebody  broke and of course that is secondary but how this is meant for good quality grants so it can generate something that is useful is not meant as a fishing expedition where you stick something  first the case which i have referred to a couple times and decided in tenure this year i think is one of the most instructive cases on this this particular statute and in that case the court pointed out that the fact that you know
and to spare six ninet cases in far less or in difference or a conscious disregard safety and i think really that's generally speaking there is no sovereign immunity state it's hard to explain when the supreme court has not ruled on whether or not gun somebody brings a gun to school there's a risk to everybody at school well or if you don't know which person is or persons are have the risk of injury like and i think that's the really what we've got here we've got the officer telling off duty officers host a party and not let anybody the control also comes up when you're analyzing and there are cases cited you know you have to have direct control you have to basically know the injured party but that's not what the court says here the public employee initiated circumstances which created the when people left the island on canoes in boats and swimming the authorities would be responsible for the well being of each person who left the island because they were attempting to escape i guess so i think you have a duty to try and collect those people and make them say put them in a safe situation and i think that's kind of the rule as this was outlined in the fan tan people they had nothing  his car keys but instead they just let him to park with respect to the public duty rule that counts of the scariest special duty exception to that definition in this case there are any facts that meet that definition the facts that would need needed to play would have been that the officers knew that travis himself was one of the people that fled but had to leave the traveston knew that they knew a window well in that case we would have it something that he seat side of the smaller group so that that person might be identifiable later oh well if if they're playing a file the same type of cause of action to grab a man which in this case is failure to assist or failure to rescue then the immunity therefore want to applies and there still isn't life so it shifts the analysis from duty to immunity i still and the facts there look at them are nowhere near the facts that are play in this case and go to the officer knew that the kids in the house were in danger and that there was a criminal in the house who was likely to harm them the mother of the kids was that if kids leave the house he will he will issue them to the right it is there an indication the story remains the route to watch now and see if anybody leaves the house now there's nothing at all it's nothing similar t objective standard and were required to examine what was apparent to the defendants at the time of the events we can't look at what they did in hindsight at the time of the events it's certainly not reasonably foreseeable to believe that  someone would flee in mighty six degree weather not wearing shoes not wearing a coat and that he or she wouldn't return to the place version folk from or some other place where your she that these protections were here saying you chased him away should've made an effort to get him should have protected you didn't do that cause that's the
independent judgment about what to pack but you did all of that without making any individual determination of this doctor's practice or his prior billing which you're requiring him to do to prove your i'm not required to do that i submit the case law in our thing that sticks and there it's wrong for the courts interject and to reach out to take jurisdictional problems that really are properly the problems above i submit this sort of occasion here is an extreme overreach in abusive create software we lease the software from another company created the software and we simply are really administrative service that was the software program but then issues electronically whether it is reasonable to use this sort of software in order to review fills that testimony would be relevant by that wouldn't answer whether any one particular charge he that how you're presenting your case that you're just going to put the medical bill in and you feel it's going to be sufficient to get you through your case in chief and i think to me it seems that way he's thinking too now if you're willing to take on  everybody as to what they're supposed to pat and if so what is that plain meaning as it progresses you try to determine whether it's going to be a quiet you're going to look at how the evidence is going to be submitted whether you're going to be able handle it or not and so reasonable knows who's got the burden of proof first off in your case and what are you going to have to do to prove that and whether again if we said if we don't believe you can do it by presenting the face amount of the bill i don't see to trial you know out and you can't cross examine them a post car and the type of trial the court seems to have in mind one where the medical bills pushing the reasonable and that's the beginning of the end of the plaintiff's case that's not a trials i said before
litigation currently filed and  the movement and we were based on the marshall factor just that alone makes the foreseeability of injury highly unlikely to foresee injury from simply the burden of placing that that on the on a transport rate is under reason for these reasons which should be known to be recognized in this case we have talked about the case of a look at it you can see carry day if you don't have a duty spec the whole of warning about the product placement read a warning about product they put on your on your car certainly was not only was it unreasonable to place duty on the transportation it constituted fraudulent joining to even allege when we look at the southern pacific reserves only place that's that's the train limit case they made the same essential rule that requiring cars them to break at state line or be limited as a state is the congress had acted that there were rules employed in place of or maybe not specifically as that this and the state regulation act in the face of those rules just like  that exposed i'm not saying we need to tell the employees that you know it was exposed to a specialist in this plant and not telling you i'm saying when they take possession of an object it's europe and they know based on month provided for in regulation you will shut it down in one nine hundred fifty ninety six there's no question about this idea that this knowledge ninety thirty five somehow makes and the reason why i haven't really is because of martial analysis the place on a tree is order of the duty of warning people about disturbing the chill they put on top of your car when they're using it on their plan and they asked for it is unreasonable
determination of title and that's consistent with what's going on on the force whether you want to hear it because the force will have you here it is a summary procedure to obtain possession and it's designed so that there's not all these different however what i do have in front of me is section twenty dish on any of the project that says if there is a question as to physician or title then it is incumbent upon the ministry or to mr couper which issued the waters to make this sort of property there is nothing and there's nothing else in the record regarding any sort of you know community she other direction thank you thank you
not filed until thirty days after the order became final how do you address that well your honor and thank you for bringing that up because this is the first time it was not raised by that bully in his brief however it has on that so i think that the filing of that petition dealt with subject matter jurisdiction do you think that the violating of that petition granted the words of your granted leave to file a motion and you haven't been a party before the courts allowing you to or the court is allowing the party to come in personally welcome to twelve or three the first district case that requires strict compliance corruption and there's always i'm trying to figure out is whether there is jurisdiction the greatest jurisdiction over the subject matter through through the application three because the court knows all courtrooms are we are obligated to examine our own jurisdiction whether the parties bring it up or not we would appreciate greatly the artist to help resolve the initial brought up there is a distinct difference between an interest in the priority as with good first standing and interest in the subject of the subject of an outcome of the litigation regardless she has standing because she
without that as defendant stated the judge did consider the the defendant's mental state when considering whether she was in custody and stated that no she was she was not regarded that she knew and understood the home asked if he could put please come in for questioning and said that she was not under arrest that the defendant told that she was free to leave multiple times including when she asked  outside and smoke and also point out that the argument that the part of her day that she well really didn't really was free to go because she didn't have a ride home i point out that number one she certainly could have left with her father she certainly could have asked for a ride or hadn't been told he was free to go so this isn't an argument again that was made in the defendant's briefing and finally did and it was feeling bad for the police department steps when he be outside on the courthouse steps after as the trial got down she'd been repeatedly told she could leave were not police initiator must go deal interrogation  different wouldn't it but she wasn't just the would you make the same argument basic with him and presumably if he believed that she was on being taken advantage of because of her alleged limited mental and social skills he would have done something about it oh what happened
that without this arrogance the jury is considering off for its credibility against the defendants credibility the jury had no reason for  written was not feeling the truth that you just did the same thing over again my question is we're going to court not consider something or feel to get knowledge of the defense argument at trial where is the use of so i don't think the trucker understood the defense make it clear i think so i think if you need to record the trial attorney repeatedly said judge we don't want this to be a trial in the trial we're just trying to show that officer horn knew how to see felony authorizations did not do that until after he learned to play in this game officer horton from art and frankly the community comments i wish they'd play more as to why they'd let me give the defendant the veto over this instruction but i would suggest that it's that the defendant should have him soon as to whether to run the risk that the jury believed the prior conviction as substantive evidence or whether the jury has enough common sense on its own to realize that a prior conviction and i would again emphasize if this isn't the only troy over there honestly i don't think that i would be in a position to argue that this by itself was harmful so prejudicial that he wou weighing of credibility assessments an inconsistency of testimony and conflicts of the testimony all of which are in the province of the jury all of these are pointed out to the jury and it's it was not so unreasonable for the discussion that way to carefully realize that the limitation was necessary to prevent an additional child going out as to why there was a tiny waist and they don't necessarily have to comply or follow that is cracked around or there is and the people do not deny that the trial judge should not have given this instruction i personally don't understand i don't think anybody same kind of question that the people have as obviously the committee had a reason to do this however what their reason for and giving the defendant the option of not having this instruction after especially after the people and their closing arguments did point out his prior conviction obviously realizing that an argument is different than an additional witness testifying witness who also had a conviction which there were at the three i believe the three jury instructions were given when credibility using a p explicitly say what was so unusual about the case was the additional witness had the prior conviction however ked at in bread it's page three sixty four it is here in jury instructions harmless where the general instructions taken as a whole correctly and fully instruct the jury so the views of it that error they're looking for a systematic pervasive pattern of unfair prejudice and in those cases specifically more leaning toward prosecutorial misconduct and the people submit that this is not a
there and also i've heard you there's a portion of the meeting of the chapel cation where i asked for comments from the public and if you're interested in the application i urge you to offer whatever comments you want to be an interested party which would allow you to have further party status in the matter if you want to take it to kenny applications thirteen dish one one five for condition of an inch of you to move a driver over there or place it with a clear spirit bridge in the fever special flood hazard area of property located to one seven stage road in the agricultural residential district so you folks want to come up and have a seat over here and tell us what you have  you're asking us to wait for a requirement that your players be designed by a lawyer and surveyor engineer y anybody else on the board of any for the questions about connecting structures together what would be the ordinance and i don't know that we've ever really ruled on it every time we've talked about it for some other reason it hasn't we haven't had deal with it but should be like a concrete walkway or germans but out of there with intention is to their voting business in a separate structure so they move the buildings closer to the house connect changes to the structure  are feeling that that will keep us from being in a conflict or throwing our lives on into a conflict situation is one of the  the way the rules were before that type of a contact could have been inferred to be a conflict and i think we've tried to make it clear that a side to this it will not put that person in a conflict situation he for this to be consistent with chapter one seventeen is were there to be a report provided during the hearing recap occasion so  especially if it involves right where according to this it says that we have to ask all who believe they meet the definition of an interested person to identify themselves i don't know why we have to do that seems to me that if someone wants to be an interested person they don't really have to make that decision that moment if they it would be later on or they would qualify if they wanted after their capacity  if you were to continue to hear people we didn't decide that night and had more questions and we had another and this doesn't require them to make that  appeal but typically the way that works is if someone feels an interested party wants to appeal usually they can bring the peel in one of the first things the party can speak appeal do is to see belly a person only or occupied property in the immediate neighborhood of the property that's the subject of the application who can demonstrate a physical or viral impact on that person's this go also you're changing my for the changes can we just run through the changes one who would be to change g change the wording of the oh we swear or affirm and leave off the part that says nothing after nothing but the truth you mean with yes
over another to make him a helpless object to humiliate you to win sway you to inflict moral in the sanity on the innocent that is his guy was good for time and have car trouble you got problems for that to happen i'm glad it happened more i did and when it did i didn't much relish the idea of being stuck in those mountains they were lucky another few miles we have been and desert i'm afraid so and we still make the game at forty miles to go twelve or one game doesn't start a one thirty we can still make it to have a card and if they ground see if i can find it just a snake in the shed this time of year i can't stand snakes most people can't part of the country is loaded with them they couldn't do they get to be as much as nine  l o anybody here how do we know you'll keep your word looks like you're just going to have to take it and you mis you think you go on this man needs help is going to get it if you want this car fixed he's going to be all right do you're lucky karo a little more to the right you wouldn't be here good one i wonder why i changed his mind and i don't like this i know something else you won't like her remember really last week about the brutal killings in arizona nobody wants to talk no more judy get it what are you going to do down on your knees on your knees you can't shoot me like this for no reason for nothing surely blowing my head off can't give you a  thrill it's money you need i have posted twenty three hundred dollars in the bank to morrow you can call my wife sure give it to you all of it your in your girlfriend could have a lot of fun on twenty three hundred dollars what about it being made you feel like i guess nobody wants to take your pla or hurt believe me i feel as badly as you did had nothing can bring him back we rely we've got to think of ourselves now do you think i want to stand there watch him die what could i do work anyone have done you can reason with that kid he wants blood doors and nobody's going to talk him out of it taught you understand what we're dealing with  what should i have taken his place with that are made to feel better what would you be saying to carl if it was me lying over there find a way to make them stop at story america do happen but you can't count on lord lord to get a good but you had a chance mr you should have taken you're a scorcher sure i recall i'm seeing you around or before some friend of the family to talk to milton town about an hour ago funny being the talk of years didn't mention anything about visitors he just left where is melt back some place you would ever believe something like th four minute a car and started talking to the public pressure get in the car and started just a minute if you want the car to run i want to live those extra few minutes now i i said get out