MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
both of them are sleeping deals from the state joshua was facing a fact of life sentence in prison if he did not testify or to testify against anyone that he was charged with first degree murder and home case also both of these accomplices not only are they receiving from this deals but they have had to demonstrate a history of dishonesty to begin with both have been convicted of crimes of dishonesty and crimes of violence for joshua joshua had a burglary a residential burglary abstraction of justice mob action an aggravated battery on a suspect made a career criminal ok's that he's had a demonstrated history of crimes of dishonesty and violence and still be also message conversation not the other way around the way that the state was traded to the jury the victim is the one who reaches out to mary had asked her husband are a cocaine and then the conversation starts from there and also too late with it so it's like she's giving him every opportunity to not come back at these messages undermine the state's theory that she was on a mission to get him to come over she sings resigned to the fact that maybe you know they had they were obviously very comfortable with these other and it's not like he would have any reason to be suspicious of her i me you know he's able to hold that against her house without without knocking these two people are very comfortable with each other and  but that's just that's just a statement of the reality of the situation and everybody at that house having day they have been doing cocaine and that's a reasonable response you know your friend not to let another friend see goes right fact that this is her friend who she cares about she is nonsense and participate in the problem because of those facts she doesn't want somebody to she cares about or the friends of her to be propped and for these reasons than the reason
about in the trial court what the judge understood the agreement to be just simply that we have been represented that the offense for which he was pleading guilty to was not one of these you don't know and it's your client has anybody in the court i'm supposed to know how could it be ineffective or maybe he should have researched it for but i'm i'm over the age of thirty five  born in the united states i'm eligible to run for president but after that eligibility there are all kinds of barriers to me getting on the ballot in a very or could be an internal policy is th jail he's had a prior offense unrelated to firearms there could be any number of reasons they would say we're not interested in wasting our resources on this guy but he was still record and i don't i'm not asking for that i guess just simply what's contained in this record that seems that it potentially the o c has its own  directing these comments to the defendant do you understand that i do not control the department of corrections it's solely up to them whether you get in or not and the defendant indicated he understood absolutely  he again the court says you understand that i can make the recommendation but it's completely up to the department of corrections of you know at this point the defendant he's not given any assurance that he's getting  exercised in their circumstance and other words with this offensive v o c able to say well even though there's this offense that we generally would reject for boot camp in this case we're of a little bit later the court says of my believe this then based upon what the parties are telling me if the department of corrections were to tell us it was an automatic denial then we would come back to square one and set this individual primp incarceration that's not an exercise of discretion that's a policy and seems to me that that's then putting practitioners in the dark when they're trying to engage and plead really would you would you say that it would be based on your experience would be possible for a defense attorney to discover that  used violence in any form of violence in the sense that it's not otherwise disqualified that they would view that and i think your earlier phrase they do that as a that i denied the motion and there's a difference between a denial of dismissal but anyway thanks for bank account i can
best a second filing may be only the first so this breach has to be traced back prior to the time the first case was dismissed or we do not have a third filing  e issue because in the remain and that we did and then and the order that was entered in twenty fifteen we're really talking about paragraphs twelve thirteen fourteen and fifteen  then we're talking about here graph fourteen there's only there's only four paragraphs issue and in this complaint that we're talking about one of the defendants has been smith's that was the ninety one that we have that we didn't have before so it's time we rendered our world twenty three and the other one was nine hundred eighty nine and it was against service and it's got the exact allegations of the nine compete clause so how is it different how is it not some just the prior ruling of this score under the rule twenty three two one seven finding that you've already had your two bites at the apple and this is a prior non compete that seems like we've already ruled on how has the court erred in its ruling before us how is the twenty fifteen order aired explain it to me the client is in error if you the second falling into seventeen doesn't apply was off to seventeen would not fly out without the proof of the competition there can be no finding a breach on the part of h and give there was no breach by to muffle supply in how can the activity of service be in this court on worse on ongoing bridge well you know when he said that i wasn't competing that's not a stick in wasn't in fact every bit of evidence that was presented said that there was no competition if you look at the two cases there were no claims for damages because they could not prove the defendant himself took the witness first but yes the second complaint was against supply right just to follow the third which is the one we're dealing with now has everyone and we're all jointly as a police said so we've already determined that at least as to supply this is is this your argument at least as to second complaint supplies and the third complaint we know the third complaint is our put in the third complaint is also supplies service and all the other individuals so how  know based on your argument what new evidence there are and this was the whole purpose of the rule twenty three where is the new evidence about the breach that gets you around the third complaint this what i'm saying he decided the supply was in breach by applying the standard of strict liability how
been sustainable the property to the south probably to the north as all i want in my opinion the only thing that i could do is ask them to allow special use for this use in the  and allow us to proceed with that request because that is a special use you can attach conditions to it cetera describing my question that would have been when i approached the village if you have to bring a facial challenge in the situation of the situation then i know that there is no relief you cannot get relief in this account in this case because a trial wor village to take legislative action they can order the village was say that i could state a facial challenge which i think in light of the supreme court decision enabled them is almost impossible but if you could and she does all she attacks its constitutionality but she did so on a girl with wide basis because she had not asked for so many really and the real issue in mapleton is and what is or if i have to bring a facial challenge and she can't get relief and just as i say in my brief if i had initially found the lawsuit i won it's unconstitutional because you don't allow contractors especially since judge now has a permitted use especially use so therefore when i asked for that role in relief and if they had given it to me then the next step would be to ask for the special used account and then for this out i have the right to go and challenge the constitutionality of that and the am the trial for treason it should be treated as and as a final challenge complaint and that's what we're looking at this complaint does this complain give you the facts from which you could determine that the text amendment applies both district wide is unconstitutional that's a facial challenge if the plaintiffs have  heard the argument and the court invited it was an interesting argument but the court after hearing the argument offered the plaintiff the opportunity being informed of the yet the party brings a complaint seeking relief because as the court of law recognizes historically in the state of illinois and i'm assuming is the function of local governments it's one of their primary functions to d reverse simply as a has applied challenge and this was just to go back to where we started this was it two six fifteen motion and looking at plaintiffs come playing the way that the village village taking action to amend it sort of this out of request by the property owner to amend the ordinance and i think that's a critical difference that has to be recognized and that wasn't recognized by the trial court
that's the point what you have here is a captain with a history of at least one theory maybe more and you put him at the helm of the ship which is important to what's going on here and absence of proof as to the issue of causation and there needs to be proof as to the issue of causation that the medical conditions in the record actually contributed to this and that question of medical island hospital within a few hours of a lesion the results came back absolutely not alcohol in the system he's been on the castle since a little before midnight on january eighteenth he had them served during that time the crew immediate danger is but i can't understand how an agreement you're now saying that there could be some agreement that would overtake the immediate wear that would be in immediate danger would have broken when you were bumping is not making any sense to me because morning my name is mark warner marcus and the appellee aircraft operating company i think it's important for the court first to keep in mind that the judge threw in our found a number of bases for find seventy five percent liability on the part of crowley most about that one for a minute go in the context of your opponent's argument about the caller id if the special circumstances doesn't apply didn't apply in the tank and was an overtaking vessel then the burden fell on the rely on the special circumstances rule to rule that the overtaking rule does not apply in this case the judge looked at the three cases that were there were tried back in the early twentieth century and realized that they  leave plenty of room on either side of the traffic lane for the tanker to have that middle area which to go to traverse and they also specifically said that they expected to adjust their their course and their speed and their heading into that of the shanker so for example you could have somebody whose main overweight had a heart attack and we all know that they need that means you're more likely to have another one but if he gets a doctor's past what's the employer to cause here well first of all dr pasternak was one of the doctors to examine him within a day after the accident it's true that had her deposition she says that i don't think she refused to give a technical that was after he had been had his first mini stroke after he had been diagnosed as an album and probably that records against their file on kept in the queue for off so they not only knew that he had was continuing to drink and binge drinking there was no fit for duty slip that they could rely on to give them some comfort that he so called problem was not going to affect duty that the employer in this case in the united states government had an obligation to look beyond that they knew that he had been going continuously leaving complaining of problems and yet they didn't do anything extra other than looking at the
that did not tell him anything about the victim having made that during the time of the attack during the time of the hour now that's a different thing ok until what you thought it was going to be going in based on discovery and i think that right now at this point in time the court is presented with love in our will and then little brings up another thing it's a bench trial it's a one day trial there's three citizen with this is why didn't the judge just say i'm going to set this over for sixty days what difference would it have made you know and it's the delays and you defend them because of the way this came down know it's not just the price you just to the people in in preparation for the real issue is integrity of the judicial process in this  indication that he even witnessed the event that they even got out of the car isn't the integrity of the process better served by finding out what all those people with a sudden you know you
sing range was twenty to forty years for first degree murder this appeal now stems from the denial of the post conviction course of his success of post conviction petition at third stage evidentiary hearing on october they immediately came back into the court room this is testified that he was told that you know we've reached this we've reached an agreement just say yes when you approach the court he had very little idea what was going on and the ultimate goal was i believe he chris and so the prejudice occurred because he knew that if he were to you go to trial and lose he could only receive this maximum of events assuming that he didn't know he kept repeating hears your argument is interested in the foundation is faulty and the argument is going to have a problem with ok you're assuming that he only knew based on what the defense counsel told him but the issue with the case is followed by the tr in there so i think that's what you need to address to look at let me ask you again if you don't mind with regard to this prejudice issue i mean just the people versus riskily it doesn't our supreme court tell us that you need to show more than just that the defendant would have gone to trial but for counsel's erroneous finds you have to show that either the tenant had to let you did that he was term were used doesn't mean that there was no compliance with the statutory point three this critical these terms all came from trial counsel and from defense counsel and i think that that ties into the state that's what we're talking about today right in the standard where there is no standard scuse me there is whether or not the judge's ruling was manifestly in error and i think based upon all of the information that was before the i believe they do the court's ruling that stems from that and its reliance on all of these misstatements of the law and incorrect position has to render the trial court's decision manifestly in error because even though there was no really the credibility issue there was no difficult situation from you what i think there's some empathy because you can't provide the actual record because it's gone but how will that that you use that against you what are the also principles that normally the failure to produce a record in support of the argument position the party's responsibility is to prepare these post conviction petition based on the regulation of our client mr arena and solely were credibility issues were not in fact because there was no issue of credibility and everything was internally consistent in the evidence sure here so you're saying we should take an a i'm sorry it was incorrect for council to have said that it was a twenty to forty year but in the extended sentence for murder he should've said twenty sixty consideration the fact that this is an eighteen year old boy with an eighth grade education who had been him yet his office thrust upon him that morning in the jury box before he went up to the bench to plead guilty conviction he had the opportunity that time so there is a partial for do we know that at that time that record is not the story
question is not whether it be appropriate for a doctor to prescribe a three day five day or even a ten day diverse critism the question is not whether it would be appropriate for the pharmacy either for spreading or filling the medication which is why each and every patient should be warned of the possible adverse reactions so wouldn't it be sufficient to somewhere never be able to raise the issue of trial if you're foreseeability based on the problem is that is contradictory experience this psychosis and there seems to be an increased likelihood depending on the amount of how long to get but even with the end it's still really somewhere in your region by three to five percent of people muscles even higher so that's why she believes that there is a relationship so it clearly there is proximate cause testimony contained in that deposition testimony specifically with respect to force the ability as well so i
now that captain marvel is out of our way we should have no difficulty in getting the rest of the lenses to be sh t only go where they were expected find that out very soon for the mob after the meeting this afternoon or well i'll show you
i don't know i've never seen you take yours from him don't you don't you yes but i always wears a mask you heard him talk you could recognize his voice  you i think so all right i can hear you come o i'm sorry about unwrapping the meeting mr malcolm but something very important to say to you every time we have a meeting the scrappiness man know all our plans it does seem that way it is that way the last time we met count to tally disturbing but do you think you should discuss it in the presence of an outsider this man happens to be one of the scorpions man one of you gentlemen should know do you mean to imply that news scorpion is here yes right here in this room everything ready you got your message and work fast is the trap working all right just test it can't miss good bets and will never know what hit him but what about captain marvel he seems to appear every time battens and trouble the power of these lenses i can turn the inside of this mountain into molten rock knowing that even captain marvel can survive that is how my plan will be carried out to find out who you are right now i'm sorry to disappoint you but you won't learn my identity now or ever
say granted so i'm having a hard time figuring out what the rule of law is that i'm supposed to look at here and other than the sat so maybe you can help me with that  today well i mean getting cases going that could turn on some factual analysis but i think it's the application of the all the supreme court rule that deserves the rico review in this particular case so when i'm hearing is you don't have a specific rule or more that it's an issue here you have certain facts that you believe were fired improperly to the one hundred three b right court entered a ten page order making its analysis so are we supposed to now look at that and say that the court did or did not do this in an easy just christian is that what you're wanting us
absolutely material i was and to go back to the first one or not your honor the evidence that we have is that track consul says that he wasn't able to find her because they had gone to an unknown location in california  what was established is an unreasonable application of strickland there's also an unreasonable determination of that in light of what was presented because there is no substitute for the person who was a near victim being able to tell her jury this is an incredibly charged case incredibly emotional which actually goes back to my second point which is that the prosecutor used in his closing argument racial code my client is hispanic and the kids and the kind of world they're coming from i also think that the use of live colored glass was is all that sounds like a lot of young people in a violent world but what does that have to do with right when you look at the facts  jurors that they look to the war at the world through rose colored glasses and these kids look at them through blood colored glasses i believe as th words reasonable before that incident petitioner went up to another individual got into an argument with him and showed him the gun and its ways found fifteen to twenty minutes before the shoot out so again twenty minutes or so believe over you know i don't even think that was objected to and it's certainly not an issue here so this was a case where and objected not raised on appeal petition or put a gun to the victim's ch ages fourteen and nineteen years old they were kids and they were kids to these jerks they did live in a violent world and that was well established through testimony through office trial there was no there's nothing in this record there was no reference certainly there was no reference to that so i don't see any referral reference or rather to grayson's record a fairly appeared to rest on federal law then we don't apply  or seems to imply that there's an independent basis for admission under twenty two fifty four v i have no idea what that means i think that's incorrect he cites the three judge
defendant his wife and the time sarah and the four children taken on mother's day around the time these things happened or were listed happened to show that this was a happy thing that was the extent the child advocacy center videos taken originally you know higher then another here back in illinois could be considered by the court as love why would he do that included in those videos reference to other uncharged conduct means anything if he doesn't have the basis for understanding what that means how they can hurt him what the law is this is that angle here i think you are to a factory he doesn't have the legal background understand what that means so i hope you're not too persuaded by him
to go in the hallway and take a break we're going to give you a break then you're going to come back feel like to come back then you're going to have to be quiet throughout the testimony of the doctor makes it very difficult she's interrupted it then she takes it out
and you're saying that i think the defendants per se in titian alleged for the first time actually in the city did and so when they meant it was made actual innocence was also put forward right