MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
decide whether or not the point counsel in she or he in that case telling the jury that's no more clear than what was here you don't know what happened in chambers prior to the note being written to send back to the jury right but i mean that maybe the judge was just simply trying to incorrect statement she said there's no statute for a basis for appointment of counsel you presume the judge knows the law and absent anything else we don't have that same i cannot or in the party provided for i failed to mention that i was aware that there is case law that allows it but i despite the fact that i did say that i knew it and i decided to exercise my discretion  broke was at least potentially suggesting that wasn't all she sat she went on and went through the analysis of why this was not a valid for you know one because there was no possibility and to i want your clairvoyant first of all that you can look in the future and say with certainty that there's nothing there and you know i'm somewhat playing devil's advocate with you but how how do we sit here today and say then reconsideration whether or not pounds not be not reconsideration exercise of discretion there's a difference there yes no i guess i'm sorry if you understand for her to emphasize whether or not she did or did not exercise  for nine and a half years woke up and then that it would excuse his lack of diligence would we suggest that there is a possible plan unrelated totally to what you raise in the magician that's what i'm think that there is necessarily merit there is a possibility so we're going to remand that case because there's some possible here there's nothing so how can you have harmless there's been a it's a common question that this work has asked of late the last couple of years but what's the harm can you of course you can and this court has the power to do so but there is certainly interest should be considered in a case that there is no merit and hand we also have the fact that of course this court can affirm in any basis and we also have the general law that an attorney certainly is not required to go and raise new plans all the supposed to do is perfect the claim or claims that have been may in this case there is no possibility to fix or perfect least something there that needs to be fleshed out here there is not now because not only is the claim not meritorious not only does not have nice of all into what you don't whine but again there's not even a suggestion to demonstrate you know matter if we were to say that all the crown judge that and then she denied people's motion that would be one thing the judge makes this if findings relating to why the petition wasn't valid and she didn't combine the two with what i had heard that she do sell for us it would have been much later we wouldn't be here if she sat i'm not you know the there's no statutory basis however due to the agreed to it so you see there's other ways young the language to find an exercise of discretion and here there is not you have you know judges this in her reasons and i
by the government this case if we look at the procedural facts in this mess in different you are trying to identify aspects of the conditional plea agreement that would foreclose him from challenging certain you know what i was trying to make clear is those aspects that are not in just that cannot be disputed here evidence i just point out were not preserved had the government hasn't stated that there are other aspects that he that right that he had a firearm itself that was found in the dresser drawer what the government was trying to say is that of those three pieces of evidence the condition was only have been something the government communicated that would have given one the impression that part of this can be an old import you're are you're on at no point was there was was the to resurrect an appeal in a situation where there's been a suppression ruling against the defendant by the magistrate no challenge so that the district court confirms that the conditional do if he doesn't resurrect is not really to the point because notwithstanding his reported efforts to preserve they try to appeal it out already and wait and previously waived claims cannot be resurrected
any basis to compare so his testimony might as well be the prosecutor saying this looks like a good statement to me it could be accurate it doesn't they have something something beyond zero and i think  its contents if it's shown to contain information there only be known by the alleged officer of the document poor at the very least by a small group of people including the list offer so it's not just the person themself it can despite the significant impeachment there are not crimes of dishonesty you know looking at forgery and that type of thing and so again to the to the extent that the victim's statement was corroborate discusses the number of people who could have forged something there is only testimony that the victim and the defendant went to the police department you know we do believe that anyone else was at the police department to see if we would look to give in l characteristics in this statement we believe to be the defendant doesn't say she picked up a stick she said she went into her house to get a stick she's the only one who would know where she picked obtain the stick with wh correctly did nag what was an undeveloped secondary objection based foundation the defense attorney when there was a discussion of admitting the statement someone who had been a felon that he wanted to show the corroboration of the victim statements with his condition and apparently did that think that there was going to be a question about plantation it being said
in this case the government had substantial evidence of my client's activities i mean he's under twenty four seventh's surveillance at the jail did all kinds of things and my defense was that he was engaged in a so to speak with these cooperating witness at the jail and that no and there was this cooperating witness what looked like a nose tackle for the patriots he was about five foot eight but two hundred eighty pounds or skinny financial advisor who would never been in jail before and this one there were problems with my defense i don't suggest otherwise but it was a legitimate defense  their brief you can see that they're conceding that this was plainly obvious they say the obvious reason for putting it is that it goes to the we thought the defense that my client fear of this person and of the way they charge the case if i'm correct and what the unit of prosecution is given how they charge it five pounds will be more than one my guy would be looking at ten years not the possibility of fifty years you got twenty case the way i do there is one kind of conviction with a ten year bassam penalty and to reject my already with one character evidence he would be resentenced on one count and get something no more makes all the other evidence in the case irrelevant but at least ninety nine percent are relevant and you can do something that makes it that under my eyes out the fence and that's completely unfair and a
that let the panel as to the questions i think proceed with the case on their argument calendar the only other thing i have to say about that is that the declaration in that case is basically the same saying i believe this happens and it's ok with the course permission i'd like to move on to the
satisfied in the green case nineteen fifties the supreme court used the st direct benefit over the course of the recent litigation particularly in these two cases that have come down from the st circuit just this year the question has september these two other gentlemen want to see mr marella now is that they were going to extort him going bruno in two thousand was of more than a decade earlier than he was later murdered weeks later in october so a different month entirely my client went on with those two other gentlemen to the rule cooperate of the sinister  to explain what his thoughts might be as he went to that meeting it was also but that doesn't sound like an attack on the obtaining the property that sounds like an attack on the sufficiency of evidence of the conspiracy  your client is a huge guy who is brought whatever happens relax you're going to get treated just as good as al treated you so for mass statement alone a rational jury could conclude that the defended a understood it and knew where the arrangement between al promising that if the payments were made he was going forward was going to be treated just as well as a groom head treated him previously the conversation then goes on and what is the defendant say he says twice you're never going to have a problem with any way anybody and when mr khouri says if anyone else were to you give us a call the defendant says and he will head i guarantee it it will land and he also then says the only time you've got to talk to us is if you have a problem with somebody so again what it was a rational jury easily could conclude from those statements that the defendant was doing was promising  the only time you need to contact us is if you have a problem and then ask the conversation continues to ensue right what did they talk about they talk about the pain of five thousand dollars that will be made the following says either i or richie will be here the next day so now mr calibers is aligning the defendant in the conspiracy so based on the comments during october th meeting of rome there was more than it would be established years and the fact for example bed although he had been promised during alberto's tenure that he would keep a particular contract and he had eventually lost it so his complaint was i'm not getting any better so
growth and needed to generate savings that's the factual conclusion from the evidence provided by the employer however that evidence is not  translate and which they did not and we provide for if you're going to say it downsizing but what if it's just a reorganization or for the purpose of increasing this establishment competitive competitiveness or productivity what is there that says that if that's the reason the employer is the employer must show that it's had a fall off in sa
a pretrial report by psychologists territory however casts doubt on the voluntariness of the statement killian outlined my client severe cocaine dependence it's on history of cocaine use he started using when he was sixteen years old and he petition because my client has made a substantial showing in the post and reasonable performance and resulting prejudice from the defense counsel's perspective there's no reason not to see the suppression of the statements you are perfectly consistent with the trial strategy not know about that he would have no standby counsel and most importantly that he would understand that he was not only giving up his right to representation by counsel right but that he was giving up his right to counsel title he wasn't sure of any and that the deficient performance prejudiced him in this case whether to file a motion to suppress based on dr killian's reports was a matter of trial strategy which defense counsel exercise defense counsel w capacity given his condition to make a knowing a voluntary statement but that he did during the nd interview in this case dr killen killing him to the conclusion that defendant was impaired to the extent it would have made it would have been difficult for him to knowingly involuntary make a statement to the police during the st year if you however during their st interview they did not discuss the subject of jodi's murder they discussed credit cards use not come to the conclusion that the statements were involuntary he said the defense thought process was much less in here and that if any had significant improvement in mental status and that there was no evidence of psychosis or confusion  document there are diametrically opposed his convictions counsel pointed out things that weren't in them the titian and he came up with an argument to show the court why each  we post conviction counsel him alone in disputing that it was delving into something that had already been decided by the trial court so unless post conviction saying i want you to reconsider the fact that you advance this and here's why is there anything that nature perjured herself appointed counsel would say no she didn't that wasn't true perjury where she corrected herself the trial and that's not him whether she she might have said i can't believe he did it being equivocal a informed of what he would be giving up in having you know jack shit to post conviction counsel withdrawn was he advised prior to that that he would not be entitled to a different attorney he was no they were not required to do that because they acted on the motion to withdraw st it was a matter of course discretion which motion to address he could address the motion opposing counsel's motion to withdraw or it could have addressed
please the court counsel mr garber has raised a number of issues before the court to your consideration i wish to address three of those issues here this morning i will attempt to reserve approximately one minute of my time for any is is as i perform before the court in terms of the selma where we have a global settlement or documentation pertains to some of them are placed before the court the document that is signed by all the parties are the government counsel myself by mr garber that is the rights that mr gardner gave up which the government and the court acknowledged that he was surrendering with but he has no constitutional right to a beyond a reasonable doubt standard for an answer that yes test what was for a provision to you under the twenty eight day letter of the seventh circuit so i think it's a very right decision but they are the seventh circuit recognized that when you have a contract and you have an agreement and ambiguous in terms of what in fact that was the situation there in the court relied on an extrapolation from those comments to a mental condition which was never discussed anywhere applying the wrong standard not at all because there's nothing in the current law that says that the parties cannot in fact you go straight and reach an accommodation with respect to the standard of proof that is a portable case that can be accepted by the well when i when i came before the court for sentencing on that morning jack there was no indication whatsoever from any party the government or the court which to my question as to been the only with facts the fact gardner was wrong in taking her and he was punished by prosecution in federal state court for that circumstance that doesn't mean that as a matter of fact she was a mature or she couldn't didn't have the capacity to make a decision according to the guidelines and i know that under cover the guidelines would be non mandatory what i want to know is when the court remained in the seventh circuit conferred by her new sentencing  understand the court's concern with the government going back now and saying you know the argument really should be a preponderance level of the person be a preponderance level issue was were operating under a different legal standard at that time with the sentence did so correctly even though the government and the defense had argued and i think the government argued even that that's partly grima should be followed at the district court level even though there was an agreement to abide by the reproduction or recommendations record we have preserved the entitlement to have material facts pertinent to the terminations of any potential change in arrangement president determined by proof beyond a reasonable doubt and the
ozzy and asked to purchase and did purchase for three thousand dollars fishing rights which had attached to the vassal fishing rights or history that attach to the vessel related to  signed and received in january of two thousand to one months later he filed suit in state court in order to find out from the states what the tax records for the cash for the craft fused discretion there in that under both alaska and washington law you know the there had been insufficient attempts to to serve mr  law adopts and look to the state law with respect to service the weather service is effective and we adopt state law for our how to implement service how to effect service testimony of my client before he passed away was that he did not remember being served and subsequently we we provided an explanation of why somebody how somebody could not remember being served  consequently when he did not do make his diligent effort to effect service to the service by publication there should therefore be in effect now and that after that was it a month and a half or so after he was through before he answered and all goes to the culpability of his actions is that right we're supposed to see what the excuse was and his is your if your pitch that it was as real as that prevented that from him responded to the well the first the first actually your honor is sometimes it says you have twenty days to respond to the complaint regardless if you go back and get a publication order but you're saying that the text of service put it on notice and therefore anything after that joseph used his culpability in trying to willfully avoid service right on the merits and i say yeah we're fine purchase something worth over half a million dollars for three thousand dollars and you want you want to get now by default you don't really want to give the merits on that that's why this is hard news well the court looked at the first service and of responding to the complaint that's correct willful disregard after the service by publication she was gone about the fact that he received constructive notice of the filing complaints and field answer and that is conduct of culpable there would be only so i'm several points three or four points where i'd like to correct the record that would be the process server the second time did not go to
the date when all of this happened her first petition was denied now the second petition was granted but that is granted after the petition for removeable has been
most of what they had told me which lane to be the souls of men among the harbor and write yes men all of them were doing they were devils and no rational believe or should be
this departure and return authorized by the executive order upon which the c s b it was based somehow prevented him from being able to have the nihil of his application for adjustment of status renewed both you and the government have asked this court to hold this sat for chan and i'm saying this case is somewhat distinguished so i want to know what your position is what guidance act and the regulations were not straight forward issue were not insubstantial and therefore the board was incorrect and affirmed without opinion under the regulations and all issue here those two questions as to who we think that the answer to the first question was or an admission is yes and the answer to the second question is he prevented somehow by his departure in return from having this case is application we knew i mean not to go out in the airport and go live in the community well that's correct that's no different than someone who's admitted for two weeks on a nonimmigrant visa which aren't considered an airport has to be why and there's all these requirements and terms  it can only be you can't get i don't know has something to do with whether you can get another ticket and then it there are so there are requirements or something along those lines that's not yours and so he was allowed to leave miami difference once you've authorized to remain in the united states for any period of time he was unlawful stenson the statute says you're admitted as a cheater leovy and the case law as a matter of fact we tried and in page forty four of opening brief matter davis which is the board of at the because i think you have a stronger argument on the the argument regarding the fact that he left and came back in doesn't change his status under the executive order and executive order the combination of section two and section three say that he's allowed to leave the united states come back and to the status he was in section three says you maintain lawful status for purposes of adjustment of status as all right yes they shouldn't do that appellant has some substantial issues that would require them to do more with some colorful issue that he has to argue is that are you telling me that he does should they have not so me adjustment applications during removal proceedings in light of these considerations james argument that aig c f r two forty five point two does not apply to him as an applicant under
physician and that's inadequate so after of a continuation of several months came back with a letter in which the address had been included and it had been invaded and it was noted that this was a photocopy now the petition says that you know he requested for his brother two of the needed information the letter is no good because he didn't have a date and didn't have of the letter or that perhaps his brother has had the letter and took it to the doctor and then somehow to him a copy and that was mailed back to him the address was simply written by hand he really couldn't explain and tried to put it off on people of india but he did it he did thank you never stacked in the back of coffee of the task so it's not clear how the people in india would have had a copy of the document to make changes to