MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
will have a slight bit of rain but overall much better than the past few weeks night will be as well you know thirty degrees some will be remember duff to follow the speed limit or just don't and up like this forty nine year old motorcycle to driving  open mic on tuesday at six thirty whether it's your first home or you've been writing for years you can sign up in the store to read what you're what you've got for should seven pm on wednesday them away join us in the in in finding inches in here inspiring stories of kids around the globe taking action to protect earth and enjoyed turning trash into treasure crafts on thursday at three thirty seven hundred thousand bucks yourself published last year and we could learn a publisher of over forty years will demonstrate how to publish your star for under ten celebrates but as a two time world marathon challenge champion sign up to run in the five k at nine thirty on sunday for or for the kids one mile run that nine your favorite animal otter very nice choice i like those animals too and i think that your favorite animal of the pig is based off your puppets now what's your favorite food people these days know and then but since we don't have one we are just taking a hard paper and then we cut it here like so you only  and you all cut the top of the top way and then it's going to be like that then you'll write it wherever you want on  so since i love and then you have your stretch  because he wanted to go to a movie that's all for wood this week's show thanks for watching
town so it's i don't want to hear about the almost court if you didn't cite it to us in a brief and i have no way of looking into it now this is just too late so you can go otherwise continue with your
debate the name of the plaintiff's nor the district court but for the case as it must once officers claim qualified immunity the burden heavy burden is then on the plaintiff to come up with a case  the closest case within this circuit is the joyce case that was decided by the circuit in one nine hundred ninety seven in says that it is certainly help to make good law in this case is a much clearer and more powerful you in two thousand and fourteen in your brawny case by this court it states that the purpose of the warrant in the context of this case is to keep police out of the house  at the doorway that's correct that is correct at the analysis reducing computer concern but previously the victims had told the police officers that he may have a gun that he was using racial epithets that he was throwing things at them want to open the door to courts are going to open the door for kinds of situations where a person has the approach of the police and is a discussion going on about meaning whether the person is not committed a crime and  you by just saying that the right exists i don't know going forward so the question in this case is i think just in light of joyce since we hadn't said anything post joyce might choice reasonably to think that on these facts it was ok to go in and if we now think that's just a reasonable reading of joy's death suit it was the choice suggest that but that's a really terrible thing to have opened up just  based on the joyce decision no reasonable officers would know in the specific context of this case regarding doorway or breasts that their acts in this case would violate the fourth man and th and they get the tip because it is another's house the pursuit is after they place him under arrest through the doorway he tries to intervene the arrest by going back into the house just as what happened here so that's in the context of the doorway arrest the how pursuit is the escape once he's placed under arrest through that screen door it noticeable officers based on joyce could know that it violates the constitution to play somebody under arrest you know within the doorway within arm's reach as he was here because he missed out he walked the screen door once he was placed under arrest he close to the main door so he was clearly within arm's reach he has been destr did he do anything at the doorway that would plausibly have led them to decide only been to arrest him when they were looking for him for the whole period of time before him well any different in terms of affirmative gesture or anything threatening because the rule you're suggesting it's setting up suggests that i don't it's not in my interest to say anything about whether i'm going to arrest them until i see the get out why that's what was overwhelming probable cause in this case so they could have used force for you yeah wouldn't be clear for these police officers thank you
indictment or information  that the trial judge's comments about the victim or towards the victim witness did not indicate that there was any prejudgment of that witness's credibility nor did it indicate that that somehow the defendant had been proven beyond reasonable doubt at that very moment that the remarks to that victim were meant to comfort that to put it all in contacts that that victim witness had to be told twice to speak into the mind it was clear to the judge that relax let's hear your story objection when the statement was made again to comfort that mean we don't care about that issue but i think it's important to understand the context in which everyone in the courtroom was viewing this witness's testimony and the judge is out now addressing the victim witness wasn't inappropriate and nothing of the statement indicates that there was pretension and the case was not closed it was after a build up of building lots of evidence out there the witnesses that the victim witness speaking  his father his mother all the testimony that went in that led to the defendant being found guilty that the defense counsel admit that telling a team that they are good and terrible that happened to you is a scary thing and i think that witness demonstrated how secure it was being before the court he allowed the defendants to have a continuance because that witness wasn't present on the first day of trial when that witness became president he then allow that witness to testify and then the defendant to testify before closing arguments he said give me a moment i want to go through my notes just make sure i have been clear in my head before you best start speaking i think this judge took every single opportunity to ensure that he heard all the evidence allowed the defense  i want to also talk about that the johnson case that household just referred to the judge in that he's did make a finding of fact and before cross examination of a that this was a prejudgment and there was an error and a fair trial was not given at that point so that is that's not happened in this case this was based on the circumstances comfort it they've never seen and if the case before then you're completely unbiased as is the judge but he wanted to make it very clear that your right is an important one and i don't want you to but i think we're all agreed that that was also pre show now just because in the hypothetical what happened was really really explicit prejudgment that doesn't necessarily mean that well if the prejudgment conclusion is it has to for just it doesn't matter that you consider more testimony it doesn't matter that you go into it with your findings in great detail or that you're trying to be fair if you do that with an
prove there's no use pursuing the first and the second was going to keep you from winning the first one regardless of how much more evidence that she developed and again that's the difference between the federal he will ask them to yell i act positive x ray some evidence here that might show that you have it he put it in you know they issue a proposed decision or that specifically finds that mr edmunds did not have coworkers knew macone else this three years after he left the mine so we now have a commission that says oh he was he was disabled by coworkers macone else two years after you look how can that be the department of labor which is the organization specifically set or they are the first had thirty days to appeal and they said well why would he appeal it's still going to lose because he's not disabled at the point it's fact finding we're not saying he didn't have to appeal it we are simply saying they made this find and that finding was not a  them and they find that he's got coworkers who macone osis and it's two three years after he left my guess what happens to me when i come back here and i say ok well he didn't mean the one after all because there's no evidence because this guy was the only one that song was five years out every person who looks at this case is going to say the deal well found that he had pneumonia you know since he meant the two year requirement so why isn't it going the other way and that essentially what we did and this is a sky from the submission of additional evidence the other side and the claimant then get to produce and evidence you can take deposition testimony of a claimant during that time period and submit it into evidence you can submit your own experts opinions at that time  and whereas now we don't have a full hearing where we sit there at that level you have one at the next level if you're disappointed or you don't like the fact that that they denied you benefits and we have people who feel whether just on in the coming up or total disability that you know if our statute requires someone to prove disablement within two years of their last native exposure and this guy goes and gets a feel well exam with a specific and you know the information you're going to get you know whether he's totally disabled or not is does he
not doesn't smart stand for the proposition that the open and obvious rule was not applicable to on their case because on the facts of the case there was no evidence of an obviously other is now with the courts all it does mention that we have to look at the relationship of the parties  person does it mean that it's not open obvious that it's extremely dangerous to do that i think it depends on the purpose in which you know if you're a photographer or white or person your house to be shot for your job and you
trial must be held before any such request may be grant my understanding of what happened was that the trial court said i'm going to schedule the motion hearing on the same time or prior to the sunset and that the parties will be allo in that case the duties reside on these issues and review and just tossing it out there is you know it's there and we don't know what it does or does it really help us decide whether it's assessment we don't have access to investigators we can't all the state's attorney public defender in kansas what the practices in their county and why this was in so we just  that he's decided in our brief after the defendant news arrested trialed some sort of a motion he's represented by counsel so the motion he filed cannot be is nothing that requires a formal evidentiary hearing if you wanted to present witnesses this attorney could have done that it was the attorney who decided how to proceed with this theory on the issue of trial  i'm not really framing the issue that's what the issue was if there's any other rhaetian floating around the room it's because since council himself has refined to establish that there's an evidentiary hearing
you know it's ridiculous any more ridiculous than seventy five dollars for a nonviolent cup but this will be no ordinary dog his father is i know and his wait until you see clearly you don't know why i'm so crazy to have i mean for so many to have one of our pu you're going to take that dog i'm buying for you you understand you know anything about  i think you'll like swell beauty you've said kind of maybe like i don't have a dog well what you said i thought oh so that's it and i'm glad you come to your senses and now i'm going to show you my sick too i broke my leg when i had pneumonia but nobody told us because we were helpless but the pup suddenly went about them all we could give them away what kind of food is this
in any event we have you are advancing by virtue of our seal way here arguments relative to the prejudice expanded to include additional information that was not part of the original record that the district court would make a determination that is a clear fence by look at the problem i think and not only that the court would allow that to come for that his defense counsel armoring and would not have some argument as to why that offense should not be counted i mean i don't i don't know that there's any real concession here by  it actually was not available on the state court records that the p s r investigators were probation officer looked at it had to be retrieved from some other source because it had not been  i mean the guy was perfectly satisfied with the p s r in the first instance but then when they found out that they may have lost one of their priors that would have gotten concerns is that it's not it's not an issue where the government was not aware of its burden of proof the government is aware when it seeks to have a defendant sentenced as a career friend that it bears the burden of proving  is especially odd about this is the fact that the court and the parties are dealing with information that none of the parties have not had any rule in the can be a lady that is occasions done by an employee of the court by probation officer by a member of the probation office and each side has an opportunity to review the p s r of course and to interpose you know remember first of all the issue was raised at sentencing so you would be looking at a preserved claim on appeal here and i think you pointed out judgement he had to raise a sentencing the government would have looked and would have found this other predicate and he still would have a clear offender
actually dismissed the most of the big case and that is why we're here today that was fi
but is that the crimes cross reference twenty nine yeah i believe there are a few cases on point in that however the strongest and best and that is the case where that where that court ruled that  domestic violence waiver which means only certain domestic violence around the rim of ability can also be applied to a petitioners controlled substance violation which precludes his eligibility from the relief you seek otherwise by an applicant for cancellation of removal here petitioner notably doesn't dispute that his control assistant controlled substance conviction virus's eligibility and he is not disputing that the of that's applies only to the moral character requirement in special cancellation of remove all and that is a broadway of our congress allows the attorney general to waive and after conviction that was connected to an alien having requirements domestic violence victim sort of continuous resident they provided that special exception for good moral character for a special edition of a mobile and domestic violence whatever applies to domestic violence crimes the same way that a dozen or seventy seven to wave around through motability so simply because it doesn't apply to his controlled substance offense which his argument is that the police found drugs in his apartment but they belong to his spouse who has been abused and so just because the domestic violence waiver does not apply to his conviction does not mean noted although not addressing the argument that position was brought up they noted that congress specified a domestic violence waiver forgive us that violence grounds remove ability and if congress intended a greater
well here the final case on the calendar united states versus  mr bryant bail we made the application posing a bond of five hundred thousand dollars secured by five shorter's home confinement electronic monitoring strict pretrial supervision  rd we talked about the need to prepare for trial as another basis for granting bond or temporary willy's so we can rest are different that he resisted arrest barricaded himself in his apartment one of the arresting officers with a knife which the court characterized as demonstrating his propensity for violence and what the district court did was concluded that that incident together with his violent criminal history and time the court credited however the package itself puts mr bryant a different position that if you were now to misbehave or do something that goes against the court's order then other people would be affected the government saying that mr bryant will not comply with conditions he will act in this violent manner then one of the school restraining measures on him will be other people being affected i do think that they're intertwined proper they haven't bought the charges against my client regarding the conduct so we're left with the allegation but i don't really have much more say on that point other than that and going through the issue about and you know i can make the representation that i can communicate with my client and we doing what we can to move through this you know however i do believe there comes a point where you need to have real discussions with your client face to face circumstance we do have video but it's limited obviously at some point we may have to address this issue further with the district court in terms of trying to expand time but i can see that coach at nineteen is posing a problem for waiters meeting with their clients because of the of the pandemic i'm not sure of the details of how the correction centers or coping with that but to the extent that there's community but but but it does seem to me that this is something it's usually within the province of the district court as you're approaching trial and you want to planned out you have is not not best addressed in deciding a bail motion like this at this time but it's rather one that deals with how to manage a trial when a person's in custody and give him the appropriate access to his attorney those weapons aside mr bryant is also charged with among other crimes extortion and firearm offenses stemming from the murder of a victim though this codefendant money there is a realistic possibility that mr bryant will spend the rest of his life in prison which
defendants who work for him there were statements within that call that the second government the second call there were additional statements that it was not his room the defendant was present but he was not registered occupant there is no evidence admitted by the defendant in that case to show his reason for being whether he had a subjective expectation of privacy you have to show was there for commercial purpose was i there for a personal purpose was it a social visit those are the things that the supreme court has said are important to consider in determining whether record that shows the nature of the relationship between these two men and it suggests that that relationship was one predicated around drug trafficking and that's a commercial purpose that's not a social purpose and maintained an expectation of privacy even though he did not say i have an expectation of privacy a major point is he was behind a locked door and like just like a my house or in somebodies house and he had the authority to be behind the locked door and exclude other people why because he was staying apparently and there is no evidence to the contrary then i think the circumstances never were supposed to look at state law or commonly accepted notions under the supreme court case law when we talk about reasonable  location in cases where affidavits have to be it's because the circumstances don't speak to what is happening there let's say the man has an office so we don't know when the point that i would make is that this distinction between the registered occupant and the way that it he was sent there you're saying that we should ignore that that whatever his purpose was
by the victims but we're here and the dismiss defendants claims the exact same claims and more lies and direct appeal and this crisis should do the same in this instance what this court said through just a screen several years ago you know only really sets the record clearly defendant is entitled to competent and not perfect representation and it's not enough to say that another attorney with the benefit of hindsight would have done differently certainly meet here it would not have been rice shredded on the defendant's part to assume that a trial counsel did not actually reach out to a doctor or an expert to try and pursue day to end yet again based on the case that he had beforehand and the facts in the slow in growth and she had to refer the family to a pediatric endocrinologist however she never he did have some special assistance at school but certainly did not make any claims in relation to place ticking whatever exam p t he took in order to complete high school and and out further on his associates degree from triton and just go back and reiterate
and raise that argument before either of these courts because it kind of looked to me like you did not get any determination from rights including the right to enforce any exclusive to the provision of such contract so you want to be that parent that are including the right to enforce any exclusivity provision of a contract as a time to an exclusivity provision even if the also get to and force the exclusivity right to use the patent you want us to make an entirely different type of argument which is if i have a non exclusive right to use a patent and exclusive distributorship agreement i also get to enforce the property to the extent that the courts are asked to look to the legislative history to try and gather some intent for that exclusion it's left to the discretion of the courts to make a case by situation at best whether or not they think trademarks should be included in the protections under three sixty five in my case by case basis judge james he did just that and found that in this instance there was no protection afforded because he claims faithfully remit but but that that result has been achieved for the bat that issues should be before the court i don't believe it before the court as as sort of understood by your questions were what are we exclusive license attached to that exclusive distribution right we see there is a we said it best shouldn't have impacted our sale should have affected the validity of that sale and all of this again is going to context of a bankruptcy sale that is undertaken support thank you thank you horse that's not barred but we can't make them spend money and we can't make them before th