MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
evidence to support that defense and also fail to object when the state alysa good evidence and made arguments that urge the jury to convict jackson of the greater offenses irrationally and let me ask you first about forfeiture sure these things were police the whole time and here's attorney also elicited that she whether officers not only half broke away both before the shooting and during the shooting and another a block away listening over the radio neighbor heard him say police the room you're considering just these brief moments and that jackson had a chance to look at what was going on and i think it's very relevant you know exactly what he was afraid so the jury doesn't speculate they can put themselves in his right here and in that way but it's also important to remember that a difference and it is different but i think it's useful to show prejudice some are considering is there a reasonable probability we don't know exactly how the jury would have considered the evidence in this case that we know that winfield's jury heard that they did find there was some police police police the whole time and that there was reason why he might have looked like someone in the neighborhood and not only the that evidence supports a lesser included offense instruction it also supported all the charges in with case  the jury found reasonable doubt that jackson knew he was shooting at a police officer they could consider his mind strange in this fight in a neighborhood where his friends reaction was to start shooting and the other person started shooting back movie she only fired to try to get away maybe he wasn't didn't agree with that the defendant testified he didn't agree with that he wanted fields to testify that he was not there at all but we do know that on the record the checksum disagreed with that because he chose the alternative theory he chose the alternative the lesser included instructions i should say so and then he does so again we know in his motion to reconsider verdict that he failed press a he was focusing on altered if things if i was there shooting the state didn't prove that i had an intent to kill second person the other he said it wasn't jackson it's possible objects and could have seen the stuff as for this was going in and out behind the police and then he stopped shooting and ran away it's the right was his intent when he first started shooting that's what was relevant and talk about how curtis this entire job that evening was to protect the citizens of roseland people like the jurors the road they highlighted officer purpose is important we're also talking about how jackson was turning the streets into baghdad played upon the jurors  court today and you will be
opportunity to examine a patient than those who are just doing a record review but that's a different issue than what you're talking about that's a that's more of a when there's a tie breaker when there's a question about in all situations who's got greater r t c don't we have to construe the criteria of being used in connection with the plane in the choosing i mean that the two have to be read together the requirement of pro in medical necessity and the other is the education city provision in the polls which says that psychiatric treatment provided in conjunction with or in an educational setting is not written to exclude specifically these kinds of utah plans where somebody goes for twenty months to educational facility and is given twenty months of treatment while also going to school at the same time you know also covers a range of programs and things like that what is the this invention of the phantom provider who provided treatment to the mr miles while he was a gateway but somehow it was not a gateway provider so that the specific evil be that says we don't cover education settings was surfaces are not covered because this thread but in the uncovered provider and in the n bits of the benefits are not available because the service is not covert been performed at this location beyond that it is very clear the very first thing that through the family in this case is we paid some claims you say anything because we didn't understand that they were being provided in advance of this in conjunction with an educational setting that was a mistake absolutely clearly we don't cover improve things provided in the school setting the image from now on we won't take this money back but from now on there your responsibility practical purpose of the of the reason why claims like that are excluded from raised from the first kind of litigation is sandbagging somebody they don't understand clearly what the issue w just two and one is at a are you what is your response to the contention that you didn't give notice in writing any ground for the now being a educational on a chair of the trade center that seem reference to the twenty four hour point can only be understood
is that the trial court failed to consider and weighed factors in six o two point seven b related to parenting time the second issues of the trial court intruder parenting time schedule that is not the best interests of the minor children seventeen it's kind of final parenting plan and in the area that you're just talking about it says but parties agreed so now it seems like we have the parties making an agreement that maximizing each parents involvement and contact with all of their minor children is in the best interest of the children so if the parents have agreed to that why should we now consider your argument about all these past incidents why why wouldn't we take the present agreement and the very next paragraph says mother and father and agree that they wish to be flexible about parenting schedules so i'm having trouble with what might it my house and go to school we have a good quote on there we have a hearing on matter for the judge williamson and judge rules and found that it was in the best interest of the children that they spend their sunday night during the school year of their mother's home so what they representing to be interference by my client was already known by the trial court to be in the children's best interest they are also complaining or agreed to when daniels schedule changed and he wanted to have the children run bases stead of them going to  disagree is she takes the position that unless the court has a detailed analysis of the evidence of planning to each factor then the court did not apply those factors and i don't think that's what the case cited stands for and i don't think that for all ok in the letter that was issued and i think again i'm looking at the agreement of the parties because it appears that least you were head of this and that maybe you drafted the so again i see a lot of agreement that was going on between the parties as opposed to what we're hearing now and i'd like you to explain that could i be happy to your own whether there were any discussions between the parties after the court ma start really ending all kinds of cases because decisions were made in may or or april you know where is the cutoff so to speak i mean everybody knew it was coming but it hadn't been signed and it's a very much my client is a registered nurse so he has all fridays schedule change and he had all mondays the children were being home schooled four days a week by the grandmother in
the land trust regardless of the rights or equitable interests personal property interests as that of the beneficiaries is that what you're saying this is this your honor
because if if a complaint was made by hearsay after this incident that was and that's a state if we don't even know what the complaint was even though it may have been against the off are in this case there are traditions there are things that report the complaints and this police misconduct in this case the fact that they didn't they didn't do this to everybody is th
and i'm sure the camels for the it probably was in the headlines for two years during this time and it starts basically with the internal revenue you got forty eight hours to get out my lampley girl and don't stop you let your packing faster credit cards and come back saturday morning and we will oversee you when you clean your desk which they decision was really based on discrimination because of his race family honor is that there was never any evidence to show that there was discrimination based on race here and there's no evidence to the show that the the company was named kept for over a week because there was nobody like here's a billion experience the overseer it's in our motion for s j and it was in response brooks knowledge of stocks door finally on this issue of the form  there that says from now on you have to be more versed in the state and finally tell each amana visibility that earns one billion for you no complaints and he's out the
to thank you for putting us with this charge of the town of ministers and what i was sorry chair the temporary town administrator screening committee the part one of the and so this morning we're presenting our recommended candidates to you for consideration of further interview and review with the additional materials that rick is going to provide you have there  that explains a bit of our process and the time period in which we conducted that process and as you know the folks i guess i should thank you the folks who participated which are  recruiting efforts a thorough review of all the candidates materials and whittled down to a smaller pool to interview and did preliminary interviews and and then  so these things happen with love course love to have either the curse of too few or too many or a bit this is we felt the process was fully robust and we met again to to discuss if there was  any need to go back you know we didn't believe it outside the scope that you know would we feel uncomfortable presenting anyone and we really feel these folks are strong and either candidate could perform in the position the risk i think having we certainly made a suggested timeline to you what you think allows for more feedback from the community certainly it's well before thanksgiving now i anticipate you guys will be voting by december eleventh that sounded like the latest so we were mindful of you know it's folks who are working on this that they're not scrambling right up until the last minute for their own recess but we didn't feel like mary and i you know you don't have to rule out to fifth it's very clear there is the comfort level in going through your next phase in this process there's nothing that bars you from having and another meeting sooner than december eleventh a few feel strongly and i think there's a desire for public input and having enough time for that yes absolutely met initially to to organize ourselves like any first committee would and then we all receive that material we would go into executive session to talk about any candidates individually where we would name them to protect their confidentiality so that that wouldn't be public until we would get to the face of of who we were putting forward because of course because recruiting and you some some candidates aren't necessarily on the markets but but could make become on the market if it was a good opportunity for them a part of his his work for us public session would be that kind of discussion and review of minutes and the executive know we did not interview ten candidates no i think we developed criteria we talked everyone from their various perspectives and experience with the  reward yeah i would at every step of the way the committee came to consensus and i really appreciate the work that they did because even though we may all have slightly different opinions and views and so robust process
situation because they were allowing the unique thirteen in the home team and shooting recreational purposes and then clarifying that there wasn't immunity for not hunting
disabled person who was involved in this it's also
facial challenge to this law why someone could not create a committee a weekly meeting a daily meeting a monthly meeting whatever in their own home for whatever interest group whatever point of view they wish t case for simply saying that if we sit around and we discuss this regularly over the dinner table it's something we think about a great deal in this household but that's an activity i'm not entirely certain that variances chand not consider contact and i think at that point as you heard the same sort of the point of analysis i think is the court was insomuch as where it got past standards for issuing a state court cases rarely reach the first of them because we're usually in so much trouble under our say constitution that we never get there they could get a narrowing construction the other possibility is certainly and i think that this possibility is  so i think we're back again to time place and manner manner i guess being the pivotal phrase the filter of here and i'm not that situation i don't think we have to have a time limit and with frankly
court the initial issue that i'd like to address in the state of your yields with the charge of the criminal sexual conduct and the charge should fail as a matter of law it isn't just an interpretation of the word engage that is really has gotten here as much as it is that the statutory definition of sexual penetration requires that it be or any other intrusion however slight of any part of a person's body or of any object into the genital or openings of another person's fun and in this particular case what we have is the insertion of the finger of the alleged victim into her own very little opening which is not another person's body and i believe that the judge  i'm not saying that this isn't despicable behavior but what i am saying is to say even aside from the fact that it may be despicable behavior we have a duty to right everybody is invalid and even if it is that we find that the conduct itself is absolutely despicable you still have to you still have to follow the law and in this particular case it's the law requires  the brother perjured himself relative to his recantation of his brother's participation in the robbery i think that the issue really isn't limited simply because the trial court judge made that finding  and that's true but it could be that it's unconvincing for a variety of reasons i just know that that is that he may be protecting somebody else other than his brother joseph relative substantially in question and based upon that it was really the it was really the testimony of his brother dreier which was of the most damning evidence  where apparently the defendant was trying to punch holes in his brother's testimony so we would argue that he didn't he knew beforehand that he didn't believe his brother they strike completely discredit his brother while he was on the stand testimony and others he came up here and said everything i said before  involved in the crimes this is why i went out and commit a robbery i was the driver my brother joe was going to commit the actual robbery nineteen victims i witnesses testify to that there is clear eyed with this identification of the defendant during the course of the trial and interesting one was he kept telling them go to the bathroom stay in the bathroom  that's an argument that is not necessary that the facts of this case and that of a woman who has just used her fingers to penetrate her gentle soft openings under force or threat of dea and that it is necessary to repay the victims for their losses and the only way that's going to happen is that in the course of his arse ration they go through some mechanism work in the past to set aside some money or
from a prior decision in a new contacts without extending that rule and the supreme court itself has done that in the context of aggravating circumstances applying them to aggravating circumstances that are similar but not the guidelines and the departures in the guidelines to including the departure and for a one point three one and a good same way that the guidelines were mandatory was governed by policy statements and commentary so because you like you applied to the mandatory guidelines we see best we have a healthy debate right now now the government's view is that according to backroads mantra guidelines when the subject of a challenging there my friend is the opposite she has very strong arguments on case but of course if it comes back on appeal because if a lower court were to hold and that there is a new rule constitutional law made retroactive that is a fundamental requirement under twenty five age that ban comes up on on final impossible and you can count on one hand the number of successive petitions as a result that has been authorized by this court in the twenty plus years since the a p a that is the function here johnson turned out to me that incredibly i mean sometimes when i'm talking about this issue and reading about it the cases on both sides it's as if we're two sides are reading different cases the guidelines were mandatory the supreme court told us that's true the in this case at every turn the owners have gotten enough today getting over it with minimal hurt all the patients showing i do believe that to the district court and perhaps with the development of the further development of the law in this area that will be able to
initially when they said you're going to get your tanning for you here you have to give us your fingerprints did she had any documentation or anything that she agreed to that and that you know there's no no written record of consent at all even though the statu best indicator we have of the legislators intent are two things first of all but the plain language of the statute itself which contains no requirement that there is a resulting in more consequential economic damages that result fingerprint back once it's once it's once you brought control of it and so dead the legislative intent is to allow people to keep control of that information and to give companies the incentive to make sure that they think you control of that information statement that's and that's exactly what this case is designed to to do mr couper you know she doesn't know who has her fingerprint now she doesn't know how long the defendant's going to keep it she doesn't just know right there doing with it is this all of this but that representative from representative i talked about as controlled as she was last and that's that's a real concern and this information is very sensitive i think we're going to see it more and more used in you know in financial everybody putting their fingerprints on a sponsor and putting it on back on the stand i think that that is and the legislature also said that they think this is likely to increase that we are at the very beginning of biometric technology and in financial transactions and in consumer life and we don't know what's going to happen in the future and that's one of the reasons that they passed the statute is to to make sure that that information sta a before that's not true and it's actually worse than that if if the rosenberg in defendant's interpretation of the word aggrieved is accepted than it reads out most of the rest of the statute so they say that they can give as to when somebody might have a cause of action israel someone else so the barometric information for profit and history that's a violation of section fifteen c but if that's the only way someone can violate the statute then there's no point in having sections fifteen a  final respects to liquidated damages point of the phrase liquidated damages that common law is that you use it when actual damages are going to be hard to prove either in amount or in existence  and so on and contract cases for example the creditor will get rid of his actual damages because the it just looks at whether this get delayed or liquidated damages are reasonable here the court doesn't have to take that step because the legislature has decided with the liquidated damages will be but the use of that get even though and in that case the court held that the plaintiff had not proved actual damages there is no proof on the record of actual damages and the court said but it's ok she can still get liquidated damages without any proof and that that was correct
from making them so that they made up witness or that they talked about the witnesses who didn't appear because they were intimidated without any evidence being present where is the where is the precious glad in the face of his death which is now as far as if we assume that there is adequate corroboration which  not by itself prejudicial warrants reverse the the prosecutor never argued that there were in fact witnesses who could come forward but didn't because they're afraid the prosecutor was responding to an argument made by the defendant where are these witnesses where the twenty or thirty or fifty whips and the prosecution based on the evidence make showed the evidence that there were yes you i know there's nothing that ties any if there's any specific threat or even a nonspecific threat there's nothing that ties any kind of threat of gang intimidation there is merely the fact that there is plenty of  people all these people were present didn't come forward did not cooperate with police and in fact even one of the victims as he lay dying would not cooperate with police that's a fact of life you have to deal with in this type of environment and to more than one interpretation that you don't have to presume the most harmful present interpretation that the jury to give you actually was a step that the jury was instructed that the objection was specific as to this point true the police conducted the proper investigation by talking to witnesses by canvassing by by finding people who knew something and going from one person to the next and you bend it made no objection either to the testimony i don't think you could say that there is any actual inference in this case that really argued by the people that there are witnesses who could come or maybe it's a possibility we don't know because they didn't come forward but to say that there because supposing the jury is the prosecutor said there are all sorts of reasons why witnesses won't testify we don't have to speculate why you know this is a high crime area etc etc if he took back approach that answering the question would he possibly have had a better shot at  actually i don't necessarily think that would get you out if it was so he could have said we don't have to speculate why witnesses don't appear there are all kinds of reasons ranging from a have to do not respond today obviously that does not allow us to go into areas that would be prejudicial unfairly british but we have the right to respond to his argument that argument witnesses won't appear it could be because there are they don't like to go to court it could be because they're afraid of the could be because of this or because of that i want your reach well certainly that mind about whether or not t