MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
the people jail at some point in time when they're being charged with a crime and so the prejudicial of the fact that the jury learning that he placed a call from the jail is slight in comparison with the property value and always of the confession in johnson which is seventh circuit case the defendant made a call from the perry jail prejudicial effect out the jury learned that it was a very county jail against the property value what was said on the station which could have been a coded instruction to intimidate a witness  court found that the prejudicial effect of the jury learning that calls for place from jail was slight and they didn't give it much weight but then they weighted against the property value what the state was trying to give him and it you know and in any given case you know if there the problem you've got you might not be as great and perhaps it would in the first in the conversations he coached mr pendergast mr pindar gas was the owner of the car that the defendant was apparently driving when he was driving under the influence and  weekend and then he stated that's what i want you to say so that's a little bit different than just trying to charge his memory or help him remember what was going on if this was this is what i want to say that is what i want you defendant was in jail was very significant the court was very careful to make sure that none of the dates of these calls were given to the jury and the court was careful to make sure that the jury did not learn that the defendant remained in jail during the whole time they just merely learned that he was incarcerated in the of being the county jail at the time of the conversation and yes there were jury instruction the jury instruction on the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof also help the jury weigh this and then there was an instruction that there was evidence for see was involved in other contact and that charged in the indictment and they were to consider this evidence only for the limited purpose of the issue of the defendant's consciousness of guilt this was a painted i mean he didn't specifically say what the other conduct was so eat eat why equally to this conduct this conduct calling in tampering with a witness is other conduct and it does and they were instructed to only consider argued that there was nothing mobeen in this station in the first conversation he talked about i was rather was trying it on sunday evening not himself and in the second conversation he talks about
actually quite straightforward it's a po to the timing make any difference let's assume for of it that we didn't have this huge number of years between his alleged and the  isn't that clear is it because simply in response to the two to the claims of the women of improper conduct he didn't have to attack their their
interferes with the administration of justice i e me serially and gives the police officers investigation this is it was done within the plain view of the officers and took a very short period of time to recover were found that he had gotten sealed that evidence court went on the whole that thus connecting section thirty one dash for the obstructing justice statute the legislature intended to criminalize behavior that actually interferes with the administration of justice i e conduct that obstructs prosecution or justice perhaps a better example would be an individual who is stopped for driving under the influence of he's highly intoxicated the officer walks up to the window of a car serve if you've been drinking in the responses yes but i've only had two  response and there would be no material better he continued to go on and investigate and possibly arrest that individual and so other material that it there would be no more firemen in order to limit that  time that the officer saw the crack i think thrown over the fence that time that the officer officers were able to recover that but i don't think but that but the but the time element there wasn't the most important factor because the officers went there as soon as they had arrested the defendant had the officers gone back five minutes later or thirty minutes later or an hour later or that but as this court's determination probably would have been a different because the officer saw the backpack being thrown over they knew where it was that they were able to go well the record isn't isn't clear as you said twenty four minutes was from the time of the initial knock at the door time that my client was taken into custody so there so we're not sure exactly how long a period of time it took for for the officer eat they knock on the door off their stew or officers in the hallway they notice that there are four individuals in the hotel room the officer officer draper testifies that he recognizes those four individuals are trying to figure out who had rented the hotel room with the consent search that hotel room other officers are c then leaves to go down to the front desk in order to try to get that information and it's during this kind of inner introductory period soon as they had  crime to give false information to the place if it commission is given with the intent to prevent a justice is a class or a felony shouldn't the false information giving the place all say actually impede the defendant's rest and in this case  my nd question is how do you respond to the defendant's argument that the speeding driver that lies to the officer about you know i wasn't speeding as they committed  not having or i think the the under the state's proposed reading there will be no there would be no difference that as long as the intent was there to prevent her arrest or prosecution it doesn't matter whether or not there was not standing  the defendant knew that there were drugs in another room or who would be affected the terminations as to what his intent was but under similar circumstances that very well could be a trick just
s the only are the only thing that one that he can point to is an inconsistent statement that there was damage to something or condensation on the stair so ever that comment is in direct  speculation guess or conjecture here there is no evidence from the fish or that he was looking for anything that he was strictly that he was right there's no evidence whatsoever that there was anything that would that was distracting  what about this issue to divine doesn't equal to mom fish but there was a there was a minor error in the amount of the appeal hundreds of funds should have been ten thousand one hundred dollars it was written spent thousand dollars it's our position it may be true but i don't have any evidence of that of addition to using the stairs or people in the building looking around to see what's going on in various areas for the safety of the residents there are characters some additional things he's doing otherwise anybody could be patrolling the building when you know that by little billy i mean there was there was five or six floors of this building he's on the third between the third and fourth floor there's no testimony that there's windows in the stairway that were opened it in writing there's nothing to but yeah i think it's his burden of proof to establish where you know what if there was there was a defect in to you know that are you know what in a situation like this what the cause  risk of employment and tom argued for top as the commission did with during the oral arguments in this matter about him being distracted or something the problem with that with that argument or theory this one it's not in their decision manager two days after the accident he describes slipping into place and that it's that's consistent with the medical records of all of the doctors that to see shortly there after the accident the inconsistency and the  view is correct and that is exactly what we discussed with the commission very same questions writes yes he is walking up and down the stairwells there are windows in the stairwells it's trying to check to see if things are worker and he goes down the stairs twice a day he's not exposed to a greater risk of the public if it is a parent part of his job to go up and down the stairs all day or all night how can that not be a relevant consideration as to the increase to say that i'm not sure my recollection of the facts are is entirely accurate but i believe with this gentleman's
was that with precious he has actually different meanings one meaning is the meaning that the judges use in reality is the chief management purpose to say to the parties
connection between plaintiff's employment and to injury this country to manifest
if you were just to get the double counting corrected and the lifetime supervision corrected and that was the only remedy those two corrections he then would now be going before any other judge a i mean she made a mistake if she thought that that's not what the issue was that they as i understand it that they had an obligation under the plea agreement to recommend a low end of the guidelines and in the case of the supervision as the settings and you may be interested if i understand that i can it's hard to believe but is it true that when you have a supervised release period that you can be a new there's a violation you can be sentenced for the whether you think it's possible to simply correct some errors and to whether you're requesting that i mean i don't think it's in fact possible to correct that i understand i mean other one true the report itself it in fact correctly indicated what the law stated and what the guideline range was and they came up with a recommendation of lifetime i have in my experience haven't seen that before except in one other case where it was
employment in the county has received over the vacation one of the person that i know has ended the county offer any explanation for this no so you spent frivolously or on litigation or things that are difficult why why would there are difficult to defend i guess why would this not fall i mean it's coming if you apply instead of the general one you limitations that comes from the tournament here because the saying that paying and the discrimination case however that the purpose of the fan page the front page is to put the employee in those cases in the position that they would have been hand discrimination that occurred this is different because he's not seeking equitable manner he's seeking from any under the statute that's allowed by the statute is a money damages remedy for his injury there's no fairness issues here for me ask you this if you were not representing a government entity who would be a ten year statute of limitations yes and i know we put words in your mouth but i'm still trying to understand your position is look anybody else it's published or it could be imposed by this for the act because the employer did not take the required child support payment that penalty is not alone because it is clearly  just three briefly i think if the position of the county is held this is the law then that means that any public employee or public employee is limited to apply but so you decided on a closing statement that you got from the county before you actually were terminated you thought you were entitled more vacation if you could buy a suit and could say i want to of occasion and i'm thirty days or twenty days or whatever i want to give it to me now i will come in i won't even dirtier desk you just means the you know so to that extent it's possible to maybe make the argument that all you're asking is that you be placed on the rolls of the county for the duration of the number of days equal to your vacation and you get compensation therefore write asking for is dollars yes pure and simple damages dollars how do we take that and ipso facto make it into something that's equitable
authority whereas under the first circuit you personally would not it seems to me can you help me understand how we put those things together with the regular ration is not necessarily which we would be today i see no way to give some degree of deference to i believe that one response to that question is that because that regulation is there in that case will never come up to the court at ninety's aggravated felony wherever in this case it's application of that waiver was not in purposedly retroactive which is what  are and the government argues that that's because under both problems of the retroactivity analysis the government's our argument prevails the first prong asked whether congress is specifically prescribe the statute proper reach and we believe that it does first five eleven b specifically states that it applies to all ignitions after november twenty ninth one nine hundred ninety and the board circuit courts including this court in gomez have been intimately interpreted the word have ramifications that it didn't that time i have two responses to that the first is that in immigration proceedings the focus is on the conviction not even what offense was committed when it comes to determining whether  an aggravated felony the immigration court does not look to what happened at the offense it is entirely focused on the conviction and it can't go beyond that simple question that's what actually gives rise to the aggravated felony bar is the conviction if somebody pleads to a different offense they may be able to more hate the aggravated felony are there is not as much of a relation between the actual offense and being the supreme court has consistently looked to the conviction as the point at which on two twelve relief to decide which statutory scheme applies for to twelve se consistently so there's between the conviction in something later we go for the conviction correct but they have not consistently or ever said that as between the conviction and the data do we go for the conviction that is correct but every court that has maybe a date range also when it comes to solicitation offenses or conspiracies there's often a date range given it's not a specific date so the date range is pretty and post one of these anatman it would be very very difficult for immigration courts to deal with that and especially then the courts would be going into a factual analysis which is what the immigration court is s in the court actually treated but conviction as the relevant past events even though that language mentions commission now for it there  longer questions i would like to briefly conclude in conclusion the application of the aggravated felony bar in acted in section five eleven event was not in her visibly retroactive as applied to holder's post
stated the statute was amended in two thousand for to add the concept of service employees and that's the second part of the of the definition the rock covers waitstaff employees service employees and service and the delivery drivers are just that they deliver food they're not servers they don't serve food with a difference what's the difference if a human being take something off of the line and hands it to someone at the table and  resolve against it i'm not going to speculate on what to do i would say that just as this court can if you look at the statute and the plain meaning the ordinary meaning that this court is two words miss rossano is not covered as a waitstaff employee is there arguing
that the judge can say that pilate we we spent all day picking a jury and frankly i just don't get it when there's the judge here it's the defendant's radioed the judge can sit there and hear the trial quicker it a bench
safety this fee is charged to those who want a building after a village or town or city are incorporated that's in addition to what the taxpayers with taxes pay for it's the same thing in state government federal government  this is a feeder has to be paid in order to acquire a permit to construct a news structure and behind them what a forty did this inspector have to acts reasonably your it is your your position is that people won't property are excused from doing your own independent research as to what is required before they construct a building even if he had a parent authority for holiday hills how would he have how many of the responsible for the requirements of mchenry county he's not employed by them  are the elements of a contract here and where is the consideration how would that and who are to your clients benefit from it in other words you said you had a duty to disclose i mean unless we're talking about the consumer fraud act and here the second argument we're back to the contractual argument there's no independent duty to disclose no of right so then where are the elements of the contract and we're back again to my mind the issue of consideration and charging a fee can't be consideration unless you have some other authority that would support that or members or fo application of the consumer fraud and deceptive business practices and how was the village engaged in trade or commerce here under that statute and i mean isn't trader commerce the advertising for steinberg case i mean didn't the inspector invite the plaintiffs just like in steinberg which was involved an educational institution but didn't the inspector here in essence invite the plaintiffs to make an offer to build a pole barn with the trust float and then didn't they then make the offer when they were except the offer when they tendered the application and the feet the building inspector made no people that work in zoning and building and some very rude once it bends on the bill of rights sometimes they'll say that it's not good enough and to give it back other times they'll say hey you need to do x y z right for twenty years or i've wor still effectual question because they didn't know exactly what was wrong or what they needed to do how do you respond to i think
have a felony the case three she does felony cases do proceeded to discovery on information was exchanged back and forth between counsel and the decision was made to have a forum to conference of probation and lifetime registration of a sexual offender after that of her justice contact with people that was information that was not available at the time did mr patel plead guilty it was not available to the judge it was not available to either of the two attorneys is a foregone conclusion that many times people would be guilty to avoid the potential of something that may happen in the future on discussed earlier defining the future no none of us actual result of that we know was just assumed that it was settled for some amount of money we don't know but we do know that it was just patel at the time that he made the decision to plead guilty and to say yes i believe that she would say that on the stand because that's what everything a pointing to and after she room i don't find a factual basis brief that the physical letter and the and that evidence that position of course that is new in that anything that didn't exist before is new but we're talking about a specific term of art we're talking about newly discovered evidence and for that for parts there are co says that it has to be that we have to analyze the substance of that evidence of those physical documents in this case condense moral value the substance of the letter in the deposition as justice fail saying that the defendant did not sexually assault that's the substance of this we had no idea there no idea and that's that's again i think i don't recall that he said talk about recantations and their unreliability specifically but i think that's probably a reason why courts in general  testimony and that in my mom is a very dangerous thing for our jury he opted to plead guilty couns be very damning to him and her going to trial court he knew that the only thing that he had to counter that evidence as his own state he knows that he has a very he knew that he was not a white american he knew that he would be sitting in front of a jury of twelve people picked it will count he knew all of that he didn't kno justice bail would you say that is not what he's people are saying i'm going to say is not true he didn't know that that's the part of the knowing and voluntary that i think we all  get we have in front of the here on whether or not what justice bill gave us was offering legal conclusions she didn't do that that is what the
understood the prism through which we're to look at this is the crime of conviction and whether the elements are related to obstruction of justice not factually what she did wrong or she did nothing she didn't do must be manifested in a way to demonstrate this that we're looking for what we get around our case and dennis were upset which dealt with the tampering with evidence and the proof there said we do not need i think that we might not want to look at the facts that would bed surround these this conviction but i think that we are bound to look at the facts of life or business of this world and who she was when she came  situation and look over the list i believe that we can say anything it is relating to if we stretch it enough but if we look closely we will see that this congress had it shows it could have stayed specifically and explicitly made a connection in causal connection and made it easier for us but congress chose not to act chill's not to say and it's what they didn't
in even if she even if council were pursuing a different strategy arguing that the state could not rule the optional weight of the candidates would not be impacted or been precluded by any other argument which is what the day nature of the substance doesn't matter because  whether she agreed to defense counsel strategy defense counsel strategy and decision to stipulate is defense counsel's province alone it is not something that the that the different the defendant herself can deal she cannot
should be about it because i was
washington had told him that he had recruited among others korean allies like my client there was a fiercely objection  that washington had told him he would recruit others for the bank robbery the second statement is after all owing coconspirator o'neill testimony special agent peter taggerty already testified that concluded that coconspirator statements made in furtherance of the conspiracy during course the conspiracy are not testimonial in nature and therefore are not barred by the crawford opinion and the defendant's efficiency argument with respect to the nine twenty fourth's the conviction the honors there was in this case the defendant was convicted of nine twenty four city under a pinkerton theory of liability the defendant does not dispute that the guns were carried and used during the robbery and the evidence at trial demonstrated in fact that there were two robbers who went in with guns and at least one of the robbers struck one of the two t early morning meetings during which one of the robbers hughes displayed his gun and another of the robbers washington held out a bag of fun in addition given the nature of this bank robbery which was a take over bank robbery guidelines vary depending on find these to be made by the by the drug that is exactly the way that's good except for the fact that the judge is no longer you know it's just a little better for a client because it just doesn't have to go up