MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
new york is not an easy place for a case can grow up summer there's not much room to play but there is something that can be done for the city's children who need a place to play and it's being done by how the police athletic league or powell as it is generally known is the best friend the less privileged youngster of new york has some one hundred thousand of these youngsters look at their power dedicated to keeping the good kids good and to doing special work with children who get into trouble and housed many and varied activities interest in boys and girls at different age levels and foster their talents through such programs as arts and crafts and outlet
relation issue unless there are other questions which i would of course be happy to address i think th are something to suppose you are right about the inclusion that you get credit for the period from notice of allowance to issue are we talking here about i guess in the axle excess of one case we're arguing that assumption about sixteen days and in the other case we're talking we're arguing about eight days we're arguing as small as the i think it depends entirely on the nature of the r c e ten and i think one of the other points i wanted to respond to was raised in your earlier argument is that the arse of the isn't necessarily true i think there has been some persons who have an almost equally strong claim to fame or treatment can play on a different side of the law the government the office postulates all sorts of terrible abuses that might pursue that
they called for the performance of his regular duties doesn't that seem to acknowledge that they're looking at it from a repetitive nature it wasn't just focusing on figuring nineteen why would they say during the performance of his regular dut just pointed out when the medical records or the surgeon says either and there were nineteen or in the performance of his regular duties it's obviously referring to repeated claim why would they have to work in the report of duties maybe doesn't curse words of what you're saying here and the point but she's saying that her interpretation of the case law the commission should specifically address this repetitive problem allegations specifically and she says that the fi
says look at things that are said in opening statement or in court outside the presence of the jury don't open the door otherwise in a disc let and that's exactly what happened here the government said well preemptively we're just going to introduce government a harmless error out on the gangs and criminal history he added i mean here there are six different types of errors i mentioned but really the lesser the ones are most disturbingly from my and so a defense defense could go through the trial without presenting any evidence and simply rely on the government's case and so where the defendant has proffered and been permitted to introduce an evidence the
case is all please approach the podium and say your name and this is a microphone that reports for the death of amplified so keep your voice up remember we read the materials very carefully so i would some of the best unknown individuals right after the state finish a long argument report told the jury it would hear from the defense counsel said judged i have no argument closing argument here especially baffling given that there was a bot the counsel could have argued to the jury this state's theory of the case is that so wrong that was guilty of murder because there was a mountain of evidence he committed theft council could have argued to start that comment and opening he's going to testify the failure to on the brain injuries focus back to the law and emotional case really to find out that the state's evidence was primarily evidence of theft not of murder but the failure to explain the course of interrogation environment along with you know this is an edited to have occasion video so he had then most of it came after he'd been costly for over twenty eight hours and the jury only sees five hours because need to remind them of that to explain so i looked at every minute  then open the door for criticism as to her through the defense which is the last word that the jury hears for they go off to deliberate that would seem like it's a natural strategy and what we do know about this record is that it's a reasonable strategy considering she's not for this all of a sudden the defense lawyers don't listen i have nothing at no argument suggesting for the truth and counsel that the client is guilty so would it have been helpful for her  their rooms were completely trashed aside from the fire and water damage i think that serves to say that argument in her opening statement on the your honor i'm not that the jury wasn't prepared and they didn't know the concert and have to do the opening i'm in fact i just want to remind the court that i meant that the jury was prepared for the opposite because the court said now you're going to hear from the defense right before counsel stood up
one o'clock exactly
consciousness level and consciousness we did not distinguish between conscious and unconscious members of the class and plaintiffs did not leave in a complaint whether at the time they were  and allowed themselves to be transported thirty one of thirty six miles from one location but the other that was the consent would you refer yes you are ok but i'm not seeing what they didn't do that they could have done that consciously you able to look at a person's subsequent interactions with their members after they have break after they have attained consciousness and that the beholder whether they start to make some statement or whether they engage in a discussion concepts or anything else sounds like you're saying ok i'm back on track because they were transported and i want to know how can that be right so the rd district of ohio has this theory that the parties don't need to engage in negotiations for the facts to have implied that contract so in that case either or their physicians laboratory services f asking is true when you look you have to establish the elements of a contract you know in the traditional way it's just a question of when you have an express contract or you have an implied contract the surrounding imply that contract between the parties and so the why well that's very good question well we are building them because there is still an obligation there's lots of ways that a happened in this girl is that there was a rematch and so the district court where there individually determining is there a contract for that particular point is there an express contract is there have wide in fact contract that's what happened  so i think i've covered the issues and just just to go back to the issue about cleaning standard and so we have in this particular case the only thing that the planet has about the scientists on the scene factual allegations at all it's a hypothetical out and that is simply insufficient that's just a speculative since the president and so on everything that i outline in terms of what's been alleged  to decide whether or not to construe the parties right court doesn't have to do that if you is not directly but as to whether or not we have a right to payment went to the patient and so  and medical mutual worse is that in the northern district in that case said that they were unwilling to dismiss in motion and replacement on the pleadings has the record wasn't developed enough to determine whether it was there i in fact i think the same should apply here you're a lot of questions about the record mr king has inserted certain facts that aren't in the record to support his position all of that reading all of these legal terms not understanding that i think that would become discovery but what is saying is that in order to have your insurance bill you have to sign this is simon but then at the very end it goes i'm to say that if your insurance doesn't pay the full amount or any amount then you agree to pay whatever the full amount arafat is unilaterally decide and i will also say that you know mr king mentioned that this is subject to market forces i think that if discover
back a second time that's correct where was the evidence what is the evidence that your client accepted this this offer from the school district to actually pay her will address the trial or indicated that she had not read the actual ruling of the policy until after she had decided to retire and  policy because the really policy didn't exist yet at that time as i was mentioning in my response the dowel case which is the supreme court case that sort of is that the head of patrolling rather border policies of personal policies can create contractual obligations scale policy language to determine if it reasonably reads employees to believe the promise was made and then the second step is to consider whether that promise was made manifest to employees and the proper analysis under the doll was paid this thirteen hundred forty dollars and sixty eight cents but i think that's a credit against what is actually due but it was no rest of the time when the plaintiff or retired as an administrator in twenty twelve she had accrued six days now she believes in testified that she had well in excess of the maximum number a lot of the policy which was one hundred knave and severance which obviates the need for the district to pay severance to bring twenty twelve i say no and the reason is there's nothing in the policy that they went to great pains to put together that says you can only be paid one  and as as we've been discussing there's an argument i'm so there's there's no justification for saying that non continuous service is not included well there's no risk that's wrong because i think it's a good policy in the state of illinois for employers to be encouraged to have policies that create a better workforce a more dedicated i believe that's what the defendant school district don't think we're fooling them an impossible standard the fooling them to what they actually offer i do believe and follow following up to your question of that they would have to be remaining made because there is under the bridge payment act there is a damage award that has to be calculated and there's also attorneys fees that can be awarded and of course those matters were not taken up at the trial for love so while i think there are sufficient proof in the record from the trial as the judgment in favor of pointer for severance i think there are other matters that do require remand to the trial or place on these facts to say that plaintive needed a particular awareness of the written policy and i think the understood mr hunter's argument to be that he was saying and it was and it was her says in her view that you know this was the poor making that determination that determination was against the weight of the evidence because of those who believe in this case is such a way is to make employees the screen go for the failure of the players to clearly improperly probably movement a benefit that it promises to pay to employees i think that's wrong and i don't think that should be the policy of the state of
in the record as far as my services were available while it was in the county jail because that is one thing i couldn't tell from from the piece whether there was any testimony at all about what asking whether a particular correctional facility offers any counseling service is an example of a reasonable effort and i think that cannot be
probable cause exists for the totality of the circumstances no to the officer at the time divining the two entrances to a gas station and i guess the median hardly a rumble strips and when he went over the passenger fell off of there so the that the testimonies and specific as to that a man had been drinking at a bar and left the bar with a passenger on the back of his motorcycle he had occurred and that if the passenger fell off and then he failed three out of the foreca the defendant passed the horizontal gaze tast that the defendant didn't fail to follow the instructions on the walk in turn tast multiple recurring times and the officer and that ties the heel to toe was not effective three other times that she was observing the judge noted that the officer when she was giving the regarding whether or not the machine itself was properly clean and whether or not those results could be wrong or liable prior sitting here in the record shows that the defense counsel had they were  at the the log was entered into evidence regarding the testing and the judge found that and in questioning their liability of the proletariat broadcast that because it was in conflict with limited to the conclusion that a field has asked suggests that the subject may have consumed alcohol and may have been under the influence there should be no attempt to correlate the test results with any particular blood alcohol level or range not in the initial part of this proceeding this proceeding was brought by the petitioner which was the defendant and scott childs is a two part series of during the st part of the hearing the defendant has the burden of proof the petitioner defendant has the burden of proof want me to do it and it becomes confusing to the person who is being instructed on how to do the test the next test is the one they could stand to test the irony of that test is she doesn't part of the record when you watch the video the certain problems and i'll put it in my stating the facts of even the labor and through the instructions to perform the task which the court made reference to say she had difficulty in but he was very co operative very helpful with it no indication of impairment and his or even under the influence and all his responses were yeah i had a with the department from nineteen years at the time that this arrest took place she was not a new officer she was not recently trained on how to do this she had recently gone through were fresher but she testified that she had actually learn
go i'm assuming so all true i don't think the record is that clear on whether the tenant was in possession at that time of the violation and if it was no sign of that that's why the investigator was confused about contract provisions were at issue when the board would consider that whether that really wished all control to the third party lessee or whether that or whether the last word retains some control of the property and that  property owners percent you could you could contract that way you were put in that would be a good defense if you fell some actually gets a guy that owns a property that would be that is something the board has considered before and found no liability on the measures to prevent pollution or environmental violations on the property and whatever causes you to take that something the bird is going to consider if they issue you a ticket so what about th indeed if he didn't in fact have control and he would preach a lease or something like that then he doesn't have control but if you don't have control you are going to be liable for the for the violation so he did portion of it that's not hearsay is a fire protection company had moved in at at some point but there's also the director's testimony that somebody that it was under a lease at the time so it's really unclear
minimum and maximum sentence he faces when pleading guilty and just to clarify really back here mr gates was charged with first degree murder which generally carries a twenty to sixty years and and state  maryland constitutional and has never been reenacted therefore when the trial court and asked mr green that he was facing natural mild meaning he would never get out of prison if he went to trial this  be the major problem i feel which is that the record just is is silent on exactly what happened here and what in fact in the end the state's last minute substitution of that mandatory now for a life period ha unrelated things that he wishes ever whole of the substitution there's no he was he was told about natural life that there is nothing that would support the belief that what claims that this lawyer said that she couldn't give him and him the documents although it seems like at the hearing he testified that he did get to see the d v d s and transcripts when about that he had no idea that it was as we have been toward the court never indicated that it was a mandatory and it was a possibility as far as in his mind it could be discretionary what else
because i think here there were some allegations and i can't remember if that was in the bathroom that somebody said let's just get it over with something like that and i mean how are the how are these people to know the names of the jurors  that's i mean that that is what the court commented on although they only commented on the communication i mean i'm i'm sitting here thinking that if that would have been brought out at trial you know somebody said something i  good point was do you agree that communication with the jury during trial about a matter pending before the jury is deemed presumptively prejudicial for defendants
the errors in the decisions including on the merits as to who the feds oath claim against mr crawford which was based on the cash balance plan and the was a mis application of the burden shifting framework that a prize under section seven twenty seven million four or anyway and secondly as to the concealment claim against mr crawford based on corners that were to the trial of either of these issues in this case turning to the merits of the both claim based on the cash balance plan in this case there were five elements that career was required to prove before there could be any ship of the burden to mr crawford to show that he had not committed the offense charged premier and needed to establish that there was a statement under oath that the is where we take the position was careers burn to show what are the terms of the cash found plan and ask him that information to know is that maybe there are some different protections  consent as to the trial of this case there was never any time in premiers complaints in the pretrial memo in its pretrial submission that the cash balance in town or any problem with the we disclosure on so that the way you're arguing it you can hear arguing it in such a way that you're saying this thing equals by now this thing equals materiality and so we're trying to get it that
or the highest one second pharaoh's things that actually impugn the it's not your classic you know criminal record it's one that gets into to his credibility and and orlando leaves it completely out and soon you know in order the magistrate is left with nothing but to believe that this person is telling the truth we don't hear a single bad thing about this person on top of the informants the information provided by you at the informant that then is only underscored by the fact that the information provided by the informant was the kind of information that would be known to an insider material omission of facts that were to have weakened the showing of probable cause about the combination of those two things or feel indication the f e u was trying to consistent with this court case so i think at least where i understand this and other courts have repeatedly said is when you do is you reform the affidavit by either exercising incorrect statement or there's anything in the record that suggests that the affiant was lying i think this was a search warrant that was sought within two days after the kidnapping in question  want to say that you know argued there's nothing in the writer of that shows in which there was a basis for the district court to believe that the special agent in this case was providing deliberately false and information being argued by your opponents and it's worth engaging on if there's a question about the credibility of the movie see ya yes and the false be happy to address any of the other issues otherwise  good and similar and that i mentioned before you know he's changing his observations and that is never dealt with by the affiant he presents a very clean sound picture of
court violated that clearly d as that right so we think that even the trial counsel evaluation d is certainly relevant we think the overwhelming weight of the i didn't share demonstrates that at a bare minimum the ineffective appellate council under the supreme court's decision next the trial court stated interpretation of the right to replacement counsel here wasn't sell directly contrary to and we think that provides an of court decision were as lacking any factual basis as in other words so long as there is some battle basis d in the record for the claim the claim is in fact on burglars and just had one quick point to that before i and he has not shown that those decisions that those decisions excuse me defy fair minded disagreement under ed and therefore we ask this court to affirm the denial of haiti is really a low it was never represented when the court was made those policy underlying reason number line to some extent helen i would agree if we're looking essentially to the spirit of helberg but by the text of hell we're if that is the situation was such that the defending in that case had no appointed counsel after to develop war or extend the war under the present the the issue with a hook is that we are dealing with the framework of the world at the time that the decision was made by d the relevant court which in this case was the constitutional problem to which for which the defending is entitled to relief but i see your point it's a it's a distinction at some point in this nations don't make a difference you know that is the your determination trouble of most is based so your honor of certainly for all the reasons i stated in my brief that mr perkel has not shown that he confession was crucial to the prosecution's case here because it went to only one element of one of the many crimes that he was charged with in furthermore that he cannot show actual pre excuse me eat hers it would not have a rational for him to insist on going to trial it's not just that this case is debatable that maybe he could raise the claim maybe he will prevail it's just not  case they said that there's there was no merit to their claim now certainly that they didn't come out and say that the claim was fergalicious but they did say allowed to hear it and again the ordering of the record in this case we see a host of evidence that mr pearl intended to kill when he was shooting at police officers as he was running from  take his guilty plea and on top of all of there mr pearl was truly seeking to avoid any convictions for the sexual offenses that he was originally charged with and he was hung on the for when he committed the labor any relief was granted that the appropriate believe would be a conditional writ conditioned on a new appeal with appointed counsel yes absolutely  now we certainly don't agree that there should never i was want to make it clear with these yes i believe that would be the appropriate really if that was the finding of the court and i see my time is about to expire your honour's i'm happy to