MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
listen here daddy you can take this turkey of yours and put it in your deep guess i'd better be getting up to date right now and then i'd like to tell you one thing and my mother always told me she always said check me boy wherever you go whatever you do always be certain of one thing when the people are nice to you kind and considerate don't forget to leave the people with the life always leave the people with the life so i didn't gentleman until i see you all again no
there's a big baby exciting new theater restaurant no no that's funny i enjoyed every minute but i'm i'm awfully busy right now if you if you're right along why i'll give you an audition some time rather you already had one yes yes that i have you any more surprises for me this evening check no that everybody onstage must stay here and see my new show to show who is going to pay for all this or we would but we don't have any money no no money no money i have a small modest have you ever been to  oh what's i guess i'd better be getting my face right now i don't i like to tell you one thing and my mother always told me she always said check me boy wherever you go whatever you do always be certain of one thing when the people are nice to you kind and considerate don't forget to leave the people with the life i always leave the people with their life so i didn't gentleman until i see you all again
please the court if the congress council there isn't anyone in this room including the distinguished members of his court you know and we don't have that situation in the chair here was able to go on and deliberate at least another four hours when the jury was home she responded again is in the same manner as the other jurors so that we really don't have the problem by entering the jury room we don't know what the problem was and in in the congress we do know what happened here we don't know why the judge was upset and that's why this case is controlled by a low because in rome it was also  certainly there's no evidence of any assault to this particular case we have jurors who were not shy about asking questions they came up with many questions to the judge zero to two days of deliberations as to what would have happened had the judge went ahead and done that because of what he told the police when he answered that he gave to the question was go ahead and do the best you can if he had to rough it to the attention of the jurors that this is what i have intended to do that calling into the attorneys i think that's really the basis why he cited today but there is no indication whatsoever that there was any kind of a deadline this was an emotional case it involved twenty four witnesses over would be a real important factor because one of the things we have to look at in this case is the question of what the judge actually said here is that and see what you can do with the words from which the jury reached sure but maybe offer proof of the existence of improper extraneous influences on the jury so the supreme court heard saying in jan two thousand and five case that  the principle we seek to validate here is so important and the burden of being poor is so minimal that we have to do it and if you don't do it do a decent job if you don't do that you never suggestion that you're making the one you think it's realistic i'm done talking about what i think it's realistic for your people i don't think that's realistic to attribute to them this very subtle distinction between we're not only asking when you cast their vote we're
the nd point i really cannot state theater and there's just a casket included for that reason there is no evidence of what we were requires namely a volunteer and knowing the br about many different experiments over many years on the subject best posts and was involved many different animals and of the extensive publication in that particular  upon speculation about really your ear i said going back to what was raised earlier essential question is about this eleven my studies are right on whether it was justified or not just fighting when we met in terms of additional evidence showing contact  interested decision makers who are both sides and conducted their own analysis in found that there was no basis for saying a tax was a participant in he mysteriously and a lot of the evidence that we were able to bring about the details of the eleven last experiment were not available and it had been developed it has been developed yes so for all those reasons there is simply no evidence to support
yeah yeah yeah yeah yeah well oh
hearing and the situation which he would not voluntarily testify in that situation it's not the fact that those defendants were called adverse witnesses that makes the difference because after all as minnesota versus murphy  poor suppressing the evidence in this case because he's really acting in the role of civil plaintiff if it's a civil remedy and he's got it he's he's got to make that choice and the fact that he's  opinion which says which scott basically requires to say we're going to compare the marginal deterrence against the substantial societal costs of exclusion and in the cases the state behind because of this it's going to be surprised that's a massive amount of deterrence and that's already in existence and it doesn't require an additional exclusionary rule in context of mice in this case  to make it back in every right to that but the states now require me to explain the source of the injury and i'm the best evidence because i was the only person there at the time and then said that's not compulsion with the meaning or purpose of the fifth amendment because case but prepare only for the pros comes the executing an apparently case however the penalty pass to be triggered triggered by the affair assertion which it's not enough for the defendant to say in this circumstance well he feels like he's the best witness even if that may attorney having all of this testimony should not be perceived as being voluntary when it's moved me on the direct examination to the cross examination by the state  he can just get away with saying that and he's not said to cross examination that on in his wardrobe and that goal if his lawyer restricted his entire interrogation it was quite to could you see the license plate given the existence of a bald head all kits right who drank what when where completely outside the scope of direct examination right what use elicit testimony from your client yeah i had one or two beers z bar that door is not just cracked open it's why go under the rules of evidence wouldn't you agree with that previous discussion missions and so press should be policy for example of the situation well what about drivers who are trying to vindicate rights trying to get their license back it's really a matter of the legislature if they want to if they want to at say something about this situation and try to shinners who want to try to retain their license to drive yet not have to make this difficult choice whether they wanted to testify could be a difficult choice but it's not an improper one to force a defendant's name so therefore
testimony before the doctor if the requests were going to be given to the next question was would it be an injustice you know for me to have all these requests needed and that was the inquir should have been then he should have sad i'm going to talk about my observations the accident most are going to testify that photographs like took reasonably reconstruct the positions of the cars and then the accident did he use these photo did you give to his attorney to kind of lay out where things were and that's fine but in the deposition though there was never an opinion given that these photographs truly had recently actually showed the scene of the accident that opinion was never disclosed and if you frankly if you look at the trask transcript the defendant could never point anything in the discovery deposition that indicated that the second issue with regard to the photographs and again jury when there was no foundation way for wasn't really prejudicial why would these with vehicles that are obviously staged or placed there why would they be used at all if you have other ones that actually show clear picture of what the  counsel pointed out a palace had the opportunity to cross examine mr bailey at length concerning the photograph and it was drawn on cross examination that in fact the carcass as pictured in both if the forehead five  may not have been in the same position he was also facing a westerly direction he did not know how close the opponent was to his being called him around so it goes to the weight of that actual picture in terms of e herself that corrected any prejudicial effect of this photograph by drawing not lie and say no that's not my i was my car was actually in fact over here making exhibit five in fact more relevant and more useful to the jury he would testify regarding the foundation of the photograph but ignores the discovery deposition in which the photographs were produced the standard for determining whether a violation of two thirteen disclosure should require striking that he meant trial can be found showed a position on the cars that was not accurate and the position of the cars was extremely important in terms of where the plaintiff was when the defendant began to pull out of his vehicle if you look at the photograph the cars  in the first place that's why there was never a penny regarding the foundation waiting to thirteen disclosure because he couldn't get the opinion and yes i was surprised when the defendant came up and said oh yes these photographs are made accurately
currencies and seeking to collect attorney's fees is there some case law that was prescribe to the general proposition that's prohibited just in general you could never have a provision that would allow it is it your position i believe that the first district does this issue in the case of busting you know you can get back and now you're he is fearful of leaving the relationship in this particular case no relationship existed at the time no professional relationship existed between your client terms are before they got into this particular relationship you see there might have been another were going on in a criminal case but in this relationship in the company business isn't there i mean don't we look at that they made then went to mr last it and said ok i want you to sign this in i want you to sign a provision for attorney's fees the first district in looking at it also may know to the fact that there representation for this particular issue this particular matter which was the chancery case in the cook county circuit court mr whalen initiated by there was a communication between the two of them and then he greatly different and therefore it is truly a political what about the fact that there may have been existing relationships in the criminal forms i don't think the records indicates that there was a crime but i representation regarding it breach of contract suit but i could never have an agreement with that client that would enable me to retain two of chain trucking fees in the event that they breach the balancing of one against the other in deciding that this was on the field for the trier of fact to be turning whether or not the individual was refusing to pay  man to determine whether or not there is a basis in addition to thinking in further answering the justice hudson's point i think that the defendant has the ability to introduce any defense they want reaches contracts as a basis for the breach of contract or does not and the credibility of the witnesses was key in this case and as a into main interest stated earlier the fight but i think when you're talking about off using evidence to establish a pattern the example i actually going back to is if someone's hit by a car and they have a pattern they have a habit of always checking both ways that is something  try those cases over again which i don't believe that the rules of the law and and i keep thinking that if if mr truly wanted to parade every professional that he wanted to that he actually that he is paid to
that if litigation continued it continued with a big question mark as to whether this case was going to come back and and defense counsel roll that dice we think you know we think they were wrong b foreigners who are not terrorists these lawyers told them we will protect your interest in the deal that was not true they told them and in the months before the close of when three hundred fifty thousand criticizing the plaintiff for filing the exact same thing which suggests to some reasonable people that when you file the exact same thing it means either you don't know what you're doing or you know intentionally which ar the right way to do things and they didn't follow the right thing they set out criteria upon which they found it as a matter of fact or at least that wasn't against me that's where the evidence that somehow the issue of whether or not there was a band and then the other did not take complaint that had only one count in it she dropped all the others there was no indication in the record that there were any attempts made through filing or attempting to file additional counts whether they were contained in the count that she filed in a single count complaint in there was nothing done other than the claim that i'm preserving my rights position that that was correct or that whatever it was subject to a surprise but i don't know if you've answered my question which is relative to whether or not they have ended the claim as opposed to continuing to make a for fraud but it's i don't believe it's with the attorney client relationship absolutely correct that is correct and that's why counts three and and the second count in the second about it complying which are identical faced from not allowing inconsistency in pleading his church versus having learned in which the plaintiff in that case already in one camp that she was permanently disabled and in the second count that she had fully recovered from her injur
warranty that there will be that the cruiserweight hundred percent free of manufacturing materials the facts doesn't mean he wants us then he went on to say that because any criminal a specific model of bridge is a wharfie doesn't mean that the the facts mean that is without the facts and he he also with respect to our merchant ability klein took away by this instruction the ability of the jury to reach the conclusion that a sh vice to day and not able to make it's really a privilege to be here today for many reasons but this case is very dear to me and it's one  while the core may have understood it that is certainly not clear on the record and he certainly did not articulate in a way that mr fuller does on every in support of their to say with respect to providing those goods there was no reach so i would there be a breach of an express wagon and if we're because there were if there were other express warranties in terms of even there was a course of conduct in which bassett decided it wanted to come out possibly met the middleman and deal directly with the squires but the suppliers would not agree to do that and there were several offered them a financial inducements that had nothing to do with what they were actually in order to convince them to deal directly with bassett so that presents a different scenario than simply dealing directly with the supplier  number three those answers given by the jury reflect a breach of contract once accompanied by irate contact conduct which included entering into a contract without intent to perform it deceitful con including offering false justification to the charge backs inequitable assertions of power coercion bribery and tortious interference all with the intent as reflected in the answer to issue three be on the there's a line of cases that says if this is not simply just intentionally breaching what this means is if you enter into a contract about tent peg that's essentially deceptive conduct in the whigs case for example which is a prior case not fair recall expenses that were charged back to our client that much much which is in play but the issue here was that bassett in dealing with this recall which was a voluntary recall had represented ambassador also represented that the nature of injury or possible injury with the product defect bassett responded that question not and so that's an addict in direct contrast for example to keep the see case that was mentioned earlier in our earlier argument malarky if you read the whole record what happened is the first day that alone you know i mean that after all c p s it was we we thought that there was a certain problem and it turned out that it was in khorat we were passing on information alon that the basic problem with the aura is that alone has made it is that they're seeking to argue that there's nothing wrong with the jury instruction because the jury found for them but that's a t talked about what is a warranty that impairs the whole value to you this was a smaller jury eventually the court noted that the jury verdict was not inconsistent
d morning justice smith who normally presides with this is unable to be here today because a family member or close family member required medical care and he's required to be there read and hear however this hearing is being recorded he will listen to the tape of the arguments and together will reach a decision initial decision probably within the next few weeks we know only a lot about thirty minutes per case here these cases of time divided between the parties i know today that this is the only case on the call so while thirty minutes will be our goal we have a little flexibility to allow additional time to allow the parties for the me they are with that with the citizen for abuse of discretion under people be hudson and people be more even assuming for purposes of argument that the instruction was required by the evidence the refusal to give the instruction is harmless while you're on really important people be stopped and said that in a majority of cases it is becomes a question for the fact finder determine whether or not the particular weapon and user caves manner however the court did state that the was then ten like metal and it was only about four inches in length and very white every excuse the lights use the court found that the toy gun was harmless because it couldn't be used as a striking instrument it wasn't have enough that was it composed the right heavy metal it feels at least four inches and that you mean a shot if even if used as an actual b b gun was dangerous in nature so the evidence became one of locker for the fort to determine because there was nothing contradicting that there was no which leads me to my second to second issue the defendant raises an appeal and that is you know education is not a conviction under printing and therefore cannot serve as a basis to extend his sentence without being submitted to a jury and proving beyond a know your honor the people's position is that as long as the defendant is provided the procedural safeguards that are constitutionally allowed to him and that the finding is book liable under the constitution that they are sufficient to be  the jury would be provided with a certified copy establishing that the defendant did in fact add to juvenile tree cations for presidential kurtley death yet committed as an adult would have been class one felonies where he was committed should have constituted a fiction because the aggravating factor under the statute is not whether the defendant when the juvenile actually committed those acts that's not a burden
war decided that anyone who's disqualified from having a license shall not be allowed to profit in any way from illinois gaming even than under all the rules look rules of contract law sign a license to iraq and i realize is this case at least a little different from some other things we have been doing here because most of those are cases where the per the in and he was never license granted that was signed a bunch of people were never license lost its place and i think that's a significant difference in here as to why the injunction should be dissolved in addition to all of the other midwest you can put your machines in prayer be allowed to the games and when but when that was done that was not in any way in having it had nothing to do with resolving the dispute between midwest and hy there and one way of looking at this at least is if you begin this case as a little bit different facts but you should jurisdiction we're talking about all these different kinds of cases that if we have people who scenes in various establishment based on these assignments back and forth of these precautions or think it's with the it make a lot more sense and be more efficient for they only need board to do its job and decide who gets what the machines in and here believe just say this in this particular case we have an injunction in some of the other cases and injections in there to somebody is allowed to operate their machines the american administrative framework in place to deal with these troy operator disputes you can't rewrite history of course but what if let's just assume for a moment of saying it was a let's say triple seven was wrongly decided in the end of the triple seven anybody is going to put in the maximum they're allowed is a reason to believe that one machine or one licensed operators machine is likely to take in more money than another and you know her there are
don't why go talk to the owner of the fee because the railroads got this ease with through there that really would prevent them from doing it with the property and until the railroad it seems to waive that easement has some value  really does not give them the right to just abandon it and sell the third party because they still only he's not a real man and that that's the only interest that they own so they can't sell it to the other party to use for possibility of true owner out there so the question if there is a policy question is can the road accommodate his neighbors who want to scrunch in on purchase for three point six million eighty four they usually use an attorney they didn't use an attorney just on their activities favorite on essential who was doing a favor did something they didn't have to do so the contract says if you want to look at you know get title insurance or have a search you the buyer when he knew you go ahead and do that you have twenty days absolutely a grace period you can walk away from this contract if you don't for all the other people who within the statute of limitation period might have a point or purchasing something that only central had no legal basis to to sell and
it's clear is they would like him to be anything it seems to me that there is certainly a lot in the record that you're not addressing and i and i would really like to do it press that because i think the birthday gift and the i think the most significant thing here is it's not going that there's no motion no suggestion nothing that suggests that david cain is doing anything wrong with respect to managing his father's a stay with your understanding read the quote properly