MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
he was protecting the money going and taking the people to do the wire transfers was which was not count one never came out to think gun charge was for the drug trafficking conspiracy the other guy in the forty five which was found just the manufacturing of the drugs and there were drugs that were found in the up stairs apartment there was another gun that was found there and there's been cases that it's that it's a gun it's found in close proximity to where the drugs were found where the manufacturing took instructions to the government points showing that defense counsel i was not trial counsel by the way that defense counsel agreed to only show defense counsel agreeing that i have the i have the charge of front of me right here and the difficulty i think is a mistake no one is confused over the difference between the objectives that are listed in the actual instruction and also in the in the portion of the charge that list that with the indictment charges and the actual other offenses charged in the in the advice she seems to believe that somehow the judge instructed the jury that they had to find that criminal a forty one a one type of twenty one in order to be found guilty of that the jury had to find that the defendant conspired to possessed of intent to distribute fifty grams or more to distribute it to drinking or to manufacture methamphetamine those were the objectives apparently mr mcmillan believes that the charge later on when it talks about you must find that there was a plan to commit all these one of the crimes alleged in the indictment is an object of the conspiracy with all of you agreeing as to the particular crime which the conspirators agreed to commit she apparently believes that the judge was instructing at that point the jury that they had to find that he was in order to con did find that he committed any of those other crimes objectives i think the confusion is he's taken one small paragraph and read it without the rest of a one six which basically lets the jury know that you have to find that he
sentenced consecutive sentences came up for the very first time so my twenty two year old client instead of doing a fifty four month sentence in essence did one hundred eight month sentence and we never had an opportunity to defend against that going back to the question of whether there's notice provided by the statute first of all actually of william's state ag departure there have to be upward departures or have to be noticed well obviously you're on notice that upward departure is conceivably possible in any case but the supreme court in birds answered that specific issue because the government mentioned why it's noticed that it necessary when theoretically noticed is always there because of our departures are always available in the supreme court so we don't want to be in a situation where mentioned will let the sleeping dog lie and then all sudden the consecutive start this or the upward departure is imposed and it's too late in the supreme court said because you can't rely on a situation where theoretically it's always possible and burden the probation and there was a probation search and that's when the guns were found that led to his federal prosecution for being a felon in possession of firearms so he got fifty foremost as a result of the federal prosecution but before the federal census wasn't posed the state revoke his probation and put him into a state prison right so the conduct that resulted in him being in state custody was used to calculate some time after the sentencing the defendant made this motion in the district court specifically slated eighteen u s c section thirty five eighty four feet into signing that that the government is trying to make between a state invention and a federal conviction the problem here again goes back to notice and the court and the government is trying to say well it's the guidelines that control or it's the statutes that control what the government those cases it was consecutive sentences both the rising in federal court but those cases treat the consecutive sentences as departures and the bottom line at a practical level for my clients he is doing twice as much time and that's what those cases are concerned about and that's why appoint a rule thirty two i want to see it requires the district court to allow the parties to comment on probation officers determinations and other matters decision and wise which it use last year in the supreme court's decision in verbs correctly reason that the right to comment has no meaning if you're not given notice because you don't know what you're supposed to be commenting about in this case if we don't the court it do that because we thought we were looking at forty six to fifty seven months that means and still within that range we were so one happy to get fifty four months then so obviously we wanted a low end but we thought that's what the ballgame was about it all  not to double my client's times which is what happened with no notice well under the current guidelines jeanne let's assume you are supposed judge under the advisory guideline
the testimony as for call and said that he identified himself for lee and with his badge and his state trooper also confirmed with him that he was an officer and heard him say that he was announcing his office the court counsel it has to be a very weak case for this court to be reviewing today a case where you have testimony of an off duty chicago police officer in the  and everything is on video and you couldn't build a straight and more documented case than this one and yet here we are today on the reasonable doubt point this is a reasonable doubt claim this is a whole counsel attempting to retry this case asserting a different theory at appeal and not just being picky but fairly and improperly ignoring the standard of review on the city was pretty well represented at trial he was very well clearly off and part literally right next to a police officer as he's going to move his car from one side of the street to the other if it wasn't for the video at crane pace that this would almost seem impossible to believe and yet it isn't it would be impossible to believe that two people would get out of a car and fire in different directions when there doesn't seem to be any activity going around on the street and yet there it is it would seem impossible  try this case before this court and watching a new defense it's improper and should be rejected i would just also mention that the court the feds gates justice that was acquitted not because of the time or anything like
that is troubling me there are three discrepancies which form the basis for that and the aisle of the application and for me the most difficult hurdle for you is a voluntary disclosure of the sexual assault compelling explanation for the omission what was wrong with her explanation that she didn't mention it because it was something she was afraid that her mother would  explaining how her family in the united states with find out and well did the agency or did anyone at any point along the way consider that act in nation that her family might find out about it and that's how to give her an opportunity to explain her explanation and again this was on direct examination if she had more to say on the council could have brought it out and direct or redirect well let me tell you that the i j as the record supports found the omission of a reasonable quote just because we hadn't told anybody before and quote and then to be notes that vogue could not explain her family would gain access to the information wind in her declaration and asylum application but there is a problem with the notation but was never asked to explain how her family in america would get her declaration information am i right you're correct that she was never asked how her united states would find out about what was going or declaration  but again the immigration just every opportunity multiple times to explain the omission she gave an explanation the immigration judge then didn't have to go back and give her an opportunity to explain the explanation and shoes detail declarations but this was not the basis for her application right and you would agree with me it's not uncommon for a woman not to immediately disclose a sexual assault whatever find out what she had put in her declarations run was issue was whether something happened on the nd day of detention or thursday at attention here the discrepancy is not minor because in her declaration that she was arrested four days after her release she testified she circumstances because of the other inconsistency in the details of her alleged arrest well i guess you and i can agree to disagree on that point but let's next address her testimony if she had to find her own way home after her release on june th when she also not compelling and the agency reasonably rejected
whether the strategy that council did personal was constitutionally objectively reasonable and whether the defendant has shown prejudice or reasonable probability of a different result counsel pursued that different strateg in the record i defend it has a threshold inability to prove prejudiced and you can't show a reasonable probability of a different result based on a feeling or to introduce unknown evidence nor can you show that counsel was constitutionally i do think that that's the bit that's the threshold problem but i will say that the record does indicate the strategy that was in play here because when the court when the when the seat broke the ok if this was a bench trial in the state didn't present an opening statement in the defense opening statement not mentioned this is not the strategy based on c s e video state broke it and said that he didn't intend to present the video and that motion had to be her ahead of time the court agreed but said that they'd cross that bridge when they came to it and then the state presented the testimony of the witness the victim who was nine years old at the time trial and six at the time of the fence and before the cross examination of that wit there was no there was there was no hearing and then in the state's case in chief the state also presented testimony of both of the victim's parents and both of those parents testified that they also interviewed their daughter arguments that defense counsel used those tapes to argue that the victim had essentially been coached or influenced and that was and that was the argument so you can say at least and there's some evidence that that was her ended up pursuing based on the parents interviews ended up being arguably more persuasive in that her parents were not trained c n c interviewers and those statements were made closer in time to the actual event that his daughter and and the victim had access to his devices but he didn't provide any evidence that anyone else could have taken these photographs of the victim in his home  formulate a different prostrated you later because she did not properly prepare to admit the cac or to have the c s e brought into evidence obviously she had to do that but that's what happened
real connection to the residence well i think one thing it's important to realize is rather they were looking for in this case it wasn't simply to be the search or didn't see some pretty evidence of drug dealing drugs itself proceeds records of drug keeping but also evidence of unexplain you will have now shifted your rationale or from the robberies presented to us in the briefs from going to show if somebody associates with a drug dealer we have the right to go search their homes to a france that he was an experienced drug dealer we believe the information the affidavit clearly establishes that for the reason we're talking about a person is a close associate overseas distribution for an opportunistic decision road you can describe how that give a much weight there was no suggestion that those were not in fact true of his training experience nothing like that was raised in the facts here why the judge for paris has asked some very good question this is about special agent smith and or the way one for one mission obviously than had extensive experience dealing with drug investigations and prosecutions and he he made the observation that given that given the misrepresentations that i found in the affidavit i do not find him credible to me there seems to be a disconnect between having reservations about his credibility
response to the court's questions about the ability of his crime and he was pretty specific that there's a memory by afscme of the understands from nature of the proceedings october and i mentioned that in the context of noting that these medical records that came out the pre sentence investigation elected that during the course of twenty four teams he repeatedly on told his medical provider that he had adequately able to assist in his defense so my question is even if the defense counsel had in the past and now we have a medication change doesn't the defendant have the right to soon as the trial proceeds be able defendant understood the nature and purpose of the proceedings and that he'd been able to communicate and discuss the case in detail this is a case where he answered ready for trial two months prior and he told the court maybe with a wink that he just learned about this on the morning of trial and problem when we're talking about fitness of people potentially trying to game the system that's an issue but we also have the same design a system to take care of people who actually think this issues and they might not be the most believable or likable people so the question that i
nicaraguan government and pro government armed elements were attacking people who had participated in the process they were conducting illegal arrests in some cases those individuals were tortured or violently skills and young nicaragua a member of the paramilitary group was looking for him and your father believed intended to harm him age education and gender also see within the christ area of individuals that were most seriously in violently targeted by the almost immediately after his participation in the anti government protest that i was in in february so he st appeared in a protest on tuesday that saturday he returned home and he was confronted  just ask persecution he was entitled to or affordable presumption that relocation would not be possible that presumption would have put the burden on the government to do two things either one identify specific city where petitioner could safely relocate to and then conduct relocation alice with respect to that city or to so many additional evidence showing a change in circumstances such that it makes a relocation possible but at the government did neither of those two things and in failing to do so it simply didn't meet its own legal and the resources to provide additional evidence showing that one city was safe to relocate to but they never did so and nor did the government identify any aspect of the country conditions evidence documenting a city where it was three located and the reason they were unable to thousand and eighteen but with the nd point the country conditions evidence actually goes one step further because it not only shows that protestors were quarter it goes one step further and shows that young well educated men who are protesting were the most where he was working and then later after he lost his job and were under the end of november twenty second other work throughout new radios to go and he was to go to work and return to his parents home on the weekends without any issue up his family and in addition he was found credible as to what happened he was death threats in addition to mistreatment that was sufficiently specific menacing in nature combined with moreover even if even assuming that's not the case just on his way home from mara back to his home town he was stopped on at least three occasions by armed men masked in our men on motorcycles and so the again the contention that relocation simply isn't possible the government council this morning and all the arguments for that matter so this time matters thank you
with judgement final or no that's one of our first question i think that's a good starting point the two cases that have already been referenced have an answer to that question jensen which is already been referenced was not on the other case it's mentioned in jensen is lord yes it was fine both of them were made to both of them were arguably a reservation of maintenance here's the difference because the reservation was for six months as an extreme example for you would say in this case our case to the judge neubauer said come back in thirty days you come back and in sixty days it would have been more clear that that that judgment was not final he didn't say that he should be on the other case we were also uses similar terminology they say the appellate court actually says that the trouble was considering the present circumstances in both johnson and norwood no maintenance was awarded currently in jensen present circumstances in the lord and at this time in our case so that means or through the question we've got a judgment here this is not appropriate at this time but doesn't have any time to come back it doesn't have a time on that's a question because that's a question for you as to whether or not this was the final judgment  result if it was it denial down from where the parties are given makes more sense it was a clear denial that why should you provide income information going forward in the future this was a partnership imagine a similar circumstance imagine this exact same circumstance where the husband or wife or a partnership with the family members it falls apart and at the time of trial you're not making any money for those two cases jensen  and in that circumstance it maybe isn't a word in the window for will come in very request maintenance it's ten years long unless it's specifically exempt themselves out so that's actually a question that out this window of the trial for whatever reasons you're not making money but in the fusion remark especially with more than twenty year marriage it would be unfair to presume this circumstance so then basically they have to determine through whatever means they can whether or not there is substantial change bed and that maybe someone unfair but generally here you don't have to report indefinitely we should have gotten me into this world the record we have shown that the husband doesn't make any money at the time so there is no circumstance in this cruise where i would repeal this regardless of what you said because under those circumstances if you said
harper and reagan and that is that when there's an overriding a very important governmental interest you can overcome the liberty interest on your person as not to have this sort of invasive treatment i'm not arguing problems that we're pointing out that if it is the probation officer was deciding based on one doctor's prescription without any of the findings of dangerousness or overriding government interest court can review is whether or not the district court has authority to enter an order requiring me to find to take medication which is medically appropriate which was the language of her opinion and then did addition that your throat if you do not do these things that are medically appropriate you'll be back before this court for a show cause hearing and i think the significance of that is that the less intrusive language in the case require you to take medication if it is medically appropriate now whether and if i can if i can use the courts hypothetical lots of things might happen out there something with mr williams hopefully they spot and become angry about his breakfast and say that i don't like the way you did my toast and maybe it would be appropriate if he continued that for as supervising probation officer you know you really have to behave different the public safe and that also are i think in the best interest of the of mr williams that it's not in his interest to become delusional and to believe that he can threaten people tend to wind up back in a situation where he's charged with c take it orally and he did that for about two three months after which they said he was competent and he was he was no longer of the order for the next four months while he was back in portland awaiting trial with no involuntary medication
verdict on the issue of intoxication in the elements of structuring i think it was clear from the evidence that we had proven each and every element of the instruction and although i don't think it would have been granted my request for directed verdict on that issue you know certainly something i wish i would have done the biggest reason i think there were here  is the provocation defense that i would follow which almost is about earnestly argued against both artists mission to the jury and before and i think the reason for that is that well there's often going to be just pieces to who started what in our fight got sorrowed and i understand your point i guess another way of looking at it is that it is right with strict liability for a reason and that is because  that the course i had intended a sixty three hour delay to be a situation where mitigation of damages is going to be an affirmative defense so really i think the purpose of  talking about an individual who was a football player for years i'm probably got a lot worse things happen to mack and probably said ok well you know our goal of the hospital if it gets worse which he did but i don't think is mitigation of damages instruction or this which wasn't really twenty proof alcohol were smaller than the shots that are typically used in bars sell it it's not that this was such a blatant did plague misstatement of what i've read the net effect of the alcohol consumed at our place was forty proof which is double what was up on for the jury to to look at and serve for quite some time through proof as you know here most viewers are as i'm sure the court may know is is is
own mining district which has been terrorized by hostile indians and scott is secretly investigating the murder of his brother tennant williams has found out that the indians obey the commands of a mysterious writer man and he believes his brother was killed because he had discovered the little man's identity as the green day was with lieutenant scott when he died and hidden in reduced color is a report written by the dying man  wanting to stock make donald and all that people if you wish to see the white boy again keep out of the  anything about him the first time anybody ever saw him around here he brought cars not in with any an arrow through it but we know that you're not at the bottom of this engine trouble of going up those red skins to kill us i don't care what you think i came here to get help to find jimmy if i can get it i'll
sentencing hearing as a whole clearly indicates that the trial court simply misspoke when he said drug work instead of drug treatment or chestnut or some other such phrase and the record clearly shows that because after sentencing hearing the defendant which had been able to meet the court then entered an agreed order modifying the conditions of his bond to allow him to attend treatment and therefore it's clear here under the definition of custody that because those conditions have been set by the court no matter how and may give credit to the defendant if the court finds that the confinement was historical and generally it's roomies interpret as permissive language indicating that the decision was still within a discretion of the trial court and here it would not have been an abuse of discretion for the barrel for a two way however that factor is not determinate here because we're in between precedent coming home either way the defendant was most recently in monish of the sensory range for his it finds about seven months prior to this hearing and we've got one
first raised the issue of selling the properties to the undercover officer over the sale of several months she did unsolicited offers and the undercover officer didn't even express an interest