MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
anybody i don't think that that would make a difference with the game or is it to run down here and steps and kills him i think that's a different analysis than to really best running in a separate direction possibly kicking maybe not kicking in that believe in the confession they're believing what sam said that he tried to kick somebody or possibly share some sort of intent or design kept in the heskey corroborating evidence of that and there is no preparation of the confession whatsoever information about he says i met being meeting in august two thousand and ten so two or three months after this incident takes place at the again meeting the perpetrators of this attack confessed to me they tell me who was present who did  evidence the defense objects to that they had a pretrial hearing the state rested its head on two different things ray they could show that gang evidence was appropriate here the first issue  was appropriate was that the surviving victim mr day goes would say that one of the individuals approached him they said something along the lines of what are you we're who are you with to try to identify him as a gang member  there sometime in the ninety's but a very very faded the pictures were taken in two thousand and twelve two years after this attack and you can see for yourself that those tests used only in case somebody that's still all they heard all that he said he's with the gay members he goes out there when they find out blake so they're going to go beat up and maybe kill the flake because said somebody one sixty six at twenty and case and the only thing you have to show with a good patient is that a quote was committed by the defendant that a crime was committed and the defendant that's all you need i don't think there's ever a foundation for saying that he wasn't going number in the past and ninety eight or ninety nine ninety eight was the arrest report that little timmy gang member twelve years later the foundation officer couldn't say when those tattoos replaced one he was identified as being number so i don't think twelve years later you can make that there's no doubt that a crime occurred here and i'm not dismissing that are arguing that it's the second pair of his purpose left i read that i don't know if we're in disagreement with but that it has to be committed by the defendant and another supreme from mr sands his confession the details in the case the evidence in the case it's be consistent with the confession we just don't have that here there's nothing whether it be my
true my client mr green has made a substantial showing the constitutional violation in th
amendments are treated which is to treat the case according to the way as it exists at the time it is being reviewed because there was no savings provision because this was an unconditional repeal of the statute there is no question about retroactive  because impacts because there is no vested right it's the only vested rights which are protected whether vested rights where the supreme court tells us that a vested right isn't it has to be something that's there's an expectation that was so affected  screwed in the record by saying that there was no evidence to ken and we you know that's the problem though we don't know this argument assumes that the son signed declaration which was really the corrected with a sign declaration that that was sufficient under really was proper bet that even if the crew were to to reach the merits and find somehow that a grace period notice which is a removal at temporary provision that does not impact priesthood noticed by about sixteen years or so so they couldn't have been the legislature could not have and cannot be reasonably read she could to mean that compliance with a sixteen year statute rules that you are complying with something that was twenty fifteen and then that motion is is the night and then judgment accessories enter that day on a default and then again it's raised in march twenty sixth and then rejected again and then again raised in the as a opposing you  deficiency and we don't have that here we have no evidence that the defendant was in any way precluded from asserting his arguments and that there was any fraud by the bank to
insurance rates would not be subject to a process that includes an affirmative approval of the great amount by the director of insurance there are three kinds o raid regulation that exist across the states one kind of regulation is a regulation of the amount of the rate according to a set of standards no way are they articulate exactly that with regard to this work he was engaged in a process in which he was concerned that insurance companies in illinois were using credits for a as part of their brains hearing company which is a seventh circuit case and i think all of the cases talk about whether or not agency regulatory agency has the authority to send approve disapprove  legislature and the legislature has determined that the standards will be and what the process will be but those standards and process does apply to every insurance company comes in no more you can't discriminate can't illinois and in illinois i have to say that i have read the case go off and i know there are circumstances in the case if we can says that i've read where there is a review option but not necessarily a seem to be under the law subject to being approved or disapproved by the director the director is limited to enforcement within this room for it but that's true  saying that at the time of filing they have to comply and that's that's the key to their case is at the time they bought it can't be discriminatory etc how do you respond that th does not impose an adequate excessive on fairly discriminatory standards as the basis for the great selection but the illinois legislature does impose a set of rules comes out and the commissioner of the directors ten come to the boards to see the injunction so they're going back to the i guess the three key words  because it depends on what the wrongful act is no but under the section you just cited the do the director cannot the agency does not independently have the power of the agency in the scope of the court if there is a practice which is not defined there is no expressed their wish by the director believes that there is an unfair practice occurring in that instance the director go
i'm asking the court to find that the district court in this case abused its discretion when it found or did not find there were fair and just for granting the appellant motion the factors that this court uses as set forth in the jones case is whether the defendant has a certain viable claim of innocence whether the delay between the guilty plea and the motion to withdraw has was facing serious charges and was facing a significant period of time of incarceration he never alleges that his lawyer did anything improper and so what opponents appear to be describing is the pressure that any person facing serious charges and facing a difficult amount of incarceration have to weigh and it's clear that that sort of pressure the pressure to make a decision about pleading guilty or going to trial and risking a longer sentence is question that finding a poet does have mental health issues but he also bore the burden of showing that there was some taint in the rule after college and he did that he had the opportunity at the motions hearing to present evidence to testify well there there was a there was an arrest warrant my understanding from the record is that after at the time that the arrest warrant was executed or shortly thereafter that law enforcement of taste sent to search appellants mothers  produce additional evidence of other acts destroyed of child pornography the crime here was complete before the government obtained an arrest warrant before any of those days and as the government noted and judge hogan found
in which you someone confuse one issue you talk about the name of the person it's not an analogy and then you go on to say specific in in the first issue trial counsel was not an effective for choosing not to address self defense and street during closing arguments for all the nothing approach was reasonable strategy for there it is unlikely that the result of the trial would have been different as the evidence against the defendant was overwhelming and did not support either theory concepts strategy during open close during closing arguments was to persuade the jury the defendant was innocent of all charges against him this was a reasonable choice and it has been held to be sound strategy and is on the defendant has noted it is certainly his constitutional rights is wrong is there is evidence however to request the jury instructions that were said backings self defense and second degree which in this case the court ruled that there was evidence however slight and gave those instructions how right it is within counsel's professional murder beyond a reasonable doubt and how there were no mitigating factors regarding self defense or second degree that people argued we argued towel there was merely a couple of shelves exchanged there were no guns no one had any actually holding a gun in his hands she argued that williams didn't specifically see the defendant shoot either ask about work riviera and that she clearly attack the credibility of where they are its certainly the jury was allowed to find that if indeed defendant was the shooter that he could be found guilty of second degree murder and based on impacts there was all this evidence that establish that he was not the shooter and we ask that you find that he's not the shooter and he's not guilty but in the same breath and also argue but if you find that he is the shooter then please find that earlier the evidence against the defendant was overwhelming and it did not support a verdict for second degree burns no one had a weapon there were no threats on the new video showing a mere potential fist fight ed that evening alone was compelling let's together with williams grand jury testimony his testimony at trial how he saw the defendant remove the weapon and how he saw him pointed at escobar space and then williams ran deviation there has to be no reason to deviate from gatun instruction and here there was absolutely no reason to deviate in the end you're saying as was discussed previously clearly beer there was an issue on he did not know where the bullets are where the shots came from when you heard those shots from the right there was also an eyewitness i believe in anderson who indicated that they observed the defendant actually shoot and another individual  there was no jury or confusion here and there was no misapprehension of the rod on the gas it was fairly clear that there were two victims the evidence as indicated earlier was overwhelming and as far as the second  very beginning as to who these very distinct victims were regarding the attempt murder and then recording and the specific intent to actually kill rivera regarding the best specific charge and we ask that you
inconvenient to the court that's my own experience second of how much he has there's a lot of issues in this case and i couldn't boil it down to one or two and i know i have to address the discrepancy in the valuation of the wall where he has an explanation and it gets very clear explanation and both of those schedules were invited by allstate agents the first council was invited by greg richards the trying to find whether there really is a contest over the material fact as to whether or not he was represented the amount of the loss because if the conclusion is there really isn't a dispute that he did in fact misrepresent the him a total by three different people of a fifteen thousand dollars and at three different occasions by three different persons each one of which i knew that there were suspicions of fr there i saw my nephew putting it there five years earlier i told them all to take it out i thought they had the problem yes that's not what caused the fire they had allstate sent their own cars in origin personal property that was involved the court ruled that because you don't have an easy simple interest in a real property you cannot get insurance coverage for that because that was the last time but that but you had several thousand personal property because you could still have insurance on personal property no good reason except they didn't want to do the three months before they did the e u oh he said i will settle everything for forty two thousand dollars i will give your credit for the twenty you've already paid me i don't know how he calculated that i'll take twenty two thousand all ways all other claims including any replacement value claims you ask and this case but that's the way they do business generally i have evidence that they didn't change theirs their policy in compliance with the statute in for fifteen years they were
bet doesn't help you if there's no traffic you can go faster right i mean if there's lots of traffic it seems it would be more negligent to go as he gets too fast for conditions if you're in a crowded situation true but the knew that he was going to cause harm but that this was willful and wanton that the way this vehicle was it being operated at the time it was being operated with the conditions given the factual disputes about the speed  transport which by the way was a non emergency transport arose out of patient care for our medical services they had the undisputed non passenger non occupant nine patient here mr palmer acknowledged we were providing patient care to mr sampson this is their job with the job of a paramedic emergency medical technician is to provide holding of wilkins is not what exactly saying i mean i was a little confused about your your argument with wilkins in this case are you saying that anytime a family member or passenger gets in they ar passenger seat where there's a person in the back receiving here to have a little statute of limitations rights yes and so sampson would have had a two year statute clearly  who are involved with an accent should have the kinds of regress if you will but it really had nothing to do with anybody running enough and they ambulance didn't he didn't know bill clinton did talk about there are other folks there they will be in an ambulance including family members and other medical personnel so i would say that while we didn't present that issue there also being someone in the ambulance that was not the person in the may act like a family member or other medical personnel and i think the language in wilkins  misconduct as you schoolbag to this case isn't just about speed this isn't just about being upgraded in adverse weather conditions this isn't just about not having lights on or sirens going which w sing out of and the argument is as i understand it do we really are people in the ambulance to have to fight over who is doing what i mean should the passenger have a different
end of this month end we are not aware of any other obligations between our organisations which means there's no offset obligation in more i'm sorry  rights were dependent on a rd party agreement i would take some precautions to make sure that i was informed if something happened to them is there any evidence of any efforts on the part of bias and go after those initial ones from two thousand and six ok but then this is what i keep coming back to two thousand and thirteen august of two thousand and thirteen when the deal finally did was because that's when the
mr brogden was sentenced by the district court to two hundred and ten months in prison for the crime my brackets hearing conspiracy however because i'm just charged state sentences for crimes that the government concedes were relevant conduct to the federal crime you will serve approximately two hundred and forty five months in prison these additional thirty five months represent time that the defendant spent in custody after receiving a state sentence that he was sitting in federal jail awaiting federal trial and sentencing section five dollars to one dollar b of the sentencing guidelines is meant to discourage judge judges from imposing consecutive state and federal sentencing for the same crime and be one in particular is meant to prevent precisely what happened to mr brogden from happening under view one i quote the court shall adjust chance so that's just that the district court was considering this is this a blanket directive by the sent to the commission or was that district court free to take into consideration and then still impose a consent fully consecutive sentence and to the extent just ambiguity should we just remain and for a further explanation or say or do we have to do something yes you're right while the guidelines and five g one point three do speak in mandatory terms of course the guidelines are only a by jury in the state court judge and here the state court judge did  or calculation of the sentence based on back guidelines calculation in this case after i'm sorry i just i was just saying all right i have to stand thank  you in this case after reading the one point three into the record the court then said quote the parties however stipulated in the plea agreement the terms of been course duration should run in currently court did not cite the guidelines provision there but i do think that is the substance of the argument that was made below and would have gotten broader and exactly what he wanted which is not only concurrent time but also a reduction based on under stop it based on the time it already served we'll review the record carefully in that respect to twenty two and then to eighty two i think yes your honor ok thank you thank you and all know people the court also quoted the rule shortly after in a written opinion but i recognize that if you shortly afterward but i think it's totally consistent with what happened in court that's a three or four but asking for reduction isn't the same as asking for a full sentence to run concurrently with the full time served no it's it's part way there but the court did run the sentence concurrently he just didn't reduce the sentence in recognition of was that mr lipschitz said that defense counsel did raise this argument about getting an adjustment for state time several times and she acted and that's why we're here on
it's not like the defendant was convicted of two counts oh criminal sexual assault there and i really think that that's the unstated premise words words which a lot of defendants are who's here are depending
doesn't which is really true of a different way doesn't it he's he's made us come here into trial when he testifies there's a few instances working here's a little bit and the judge just remain immune but that's not unusual for a witness we do have some expert testimony that the jury heard so with there really have been a different state in this case if the jury had been instructed absolutely on that and how how do we come to that about being insane was the state used to you consciousness of guilt when in fact when you dealing with someone so deeply mentally ill who is dealing with such delusions generally means something else entirely it would have given context to argument that maybe all of this stuff should have been put before the theory and let them decide is he just lying and trying to get out of it or you see you know is really suffering from some mental defect what would have been that i'm allowed the jury to hear
that they have the right to call witnesses and the fan the prosecutor simply points out that you know if the defendant talked this guy would be helpful to his defense he has subpoena power just like we do what i don't see the the due process violation there is a difference your honor i think between actually calling the witnesses having the right and the prosecutor indicating that if someone is important you should be calling them  comment was really that the person wasn't called i didn't call in i had promised to call and he effectively stand back the defense is indicating he was going to call this witness but bit later have to issue isn't the issue is whether or not it was improper for the going to point out that if this guy was so important the defense have equal authority to subpoena him and i and what's wrong with that because the defendant has no obligation no obligation not defense counsel who first raised the issue again i think the record is very clear on this and it's to e r v s of the record at one fifteen zero where the prosecutor indicates that he would be calling on mr her inappropriate and of course after the prosecutor made his rebuttal statement during the final instructions to the jury the court repeatedly instructed the jury that the state for the burden of proof so i think that's sufficient to the appellant failure to take the stand and that's the same as what happened here the prosecutor was merely responding to the defense counsel's argument and pointing out there is a weakness in the case defendant could have called this witness he did not say i giving to the third in effect of the systems of counsel signed which is the failure to the argument that defense counsel should have filed written objections to the pre sentence investigation report even if it was it was harmless and as i understand our standard of review under every thought we would have to find that was an objectively unreasonable determination in the light of this factual issue i guess you would who opened the goal that is the standard your honor if you have to find it is objective the reasonable i would say that with respect to looking at the post in this records findings again a finding was that defense counsel you turn first raised the issue and that's what i take court council's addressing the court i would have to agree that it looks like the jury was not in the court of the time that the witness list issue was presented however i think if you look at the broader question about the sort of procedure will we be doing is allowing prosecutors to indicate to the court and counsel who they're with this is would be but a witness to my favor boy this was before trial much like the prosecution here you include names of people that you don't necessarily ultimately call trial you because you don't want to get jammed by not
defendant or his appellate counsel raised in the direct appeal the issue or issues the two issues that he was raising in this case you know the first issue the reasons you need to use with the constitution the statement of fact indicated that it was it even contemplated the presumption that was found to be unconstitutional and always facts that would be substantial enough or sufficient enough to support a conviction so it's not just a plea that constitutes a waiver it also was a stipulation to what the record unconstitutional was in place by nine hundred ninety eight and in fact the prior prior appellate court case also had brought a similar claim based on nine dash three b s this is a claim that could have been that could have been raised  doing admitted that he was reckless and thus the the section nine dash three field was not applied to him that there was no jury to be instructed to make this unconstitutional mandatory presumption and furthermore the judge also did  factual scenario presented as well or of who are you arguing in their case that the plea of guilty was a stipulation to the allegations in the charging document i eas dismissing for whatever reason these issues cannot succeed and the judge can agree with it so i think there is a little bit of overlap between first and second stage in the renewed interest second stage of the judge can still get at some of what he could have done