MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
neither material more relevant to the question of guilt that can be especially prejudicial because of its obvious potential for exploitation by the prosecution do we know when mr peters was mirandized to not know when he was discredit his version of the events is trying to discredit his his self defense or his unreasonable self defense defense let's assume we agree with you that there should have been a comment on those when the evidence myself rights and the person he was supposedly defending himself against his own rallying him to get jacked and reload his shotgun and shoot him again isn't any comment on his feel you're to say to the police questions thank you fair commentary when when his defense is i shot my brother in self defense the fact that he doesn't remain on the scene should assist the police
we do a criminal charges that result from the violation of the immigration laws some people enter under in the united states without permission from the attorney general they may be charged criminally and miranda certainly would apply in that context but this is correct that this is purely an administrative matter continue the the f b i talks to a lot of people or something and they and they talk to people who subsequently are going to be charged but just in the course of an investigation they don't have to give a miranda warning every time they approach somebody's house and go and talk to them that is correct
one cent difference in earnings per share for the year as well as completely reversed the gain for the fourth quarter turned into a loss was two or seventy thousand dollars after tax charge was there any other history of improper reporting by the vending machine operators to the company and then the company when its payments to the vending machine operators for what they are sold and these are supposed to balance out and that right happened here was some of these accounts never generated any revenue coming in on the other side and so what happened was these were kept in accounts payable as they were going to get money for the rental fees that w eight million dollars in revenue so it really is a very small amount compared to the fifty eight million dollars in revenue and to just press and original complaint briefly because my colleague seems to have your original complaint to some degree from a vice president to a company president and the president asked the vice president to change a memorandum that adds nothing as the suggest that the universe or the plane itself said from the beginning allegation that connections in some way relate to the charge offs there's no source for that no witnesses said that no one has talked about that there's no connection to that it doesn't exist the information belief that they are by the parts so there's nothing to support any of the allegations in the proposal many complaints there bear allegations that they are right in the old days would have been called for by hindsight services that were promised and accounts received on that basis between he the accounts that were given to get readers there were a number of small accounts that were cancelled which resulted in this restatement for being with us today and will take the matter
father of the child took the child from the residence where he was with his mother and approximately an hour after the incident the police were called came to the scene the matter was reported the following drugs and i think this u s supreme court has said that we look at all the knowledge of all the things together not just the universe so why isn't there enough doorway of the house the father's inside the mother's outside yelling both ways the police have to going to sick leave as a weapon at hand in this situation this kroger is under arrest moment could have been taken left the home with the daughter that was fifteen hours earlier there was nothing that would mean that would not infer that she would be in the trunk of the vehicle the fact that she was last seen in the car fifteen hours before it's has been missing with the person where police are completely aware at the time of the arrest three officers testified before judge peckman that they knew that and an assault of the baby's mother had occurred they knew about the attempted going to be searched has to be connected to the emergency at hand logic tells us that a twenty month old baby would not be secret in the glove compartment they did not look there  that the officers were not motivated to find evidence of another crime locate the child all lying
things that happened to him under a communist regime in bulgaria and even after that communist regime was changed to a proportionally democratic regime the scanner that we have that for the court is a standard was separated from his family in place and to reeducation camp he was mistreated and beaten repeatedly while he was serving in the military bulgaria he was beaten and arrested after the communist overthrow of the area i'm after the commies had been overthrown and in addition to that his family was separated from him his father was placed for three years in imprisonment and served hard labor which alone is enough to sustain a grant of political asylum fact that the family members have been subjected to extreme hard to mistreatment now the problem that we have here is that when the judge the immigration judge made her decision there was no first of all no credibility finding on the part of the elian in other words the judge never affirmatively found that that he was credible nor did she find that he was worried about is that he'll go back to bulgaria now with a fair amount of money and that come out gangs will get him or get his family members because he has money well i would i think that's least yes it would be fair to to conceive that criminal activity in bulgaria is not a basis for political asylum i would concede that point but i don't even think we get that far yet there never was a finding by this immigration judge it seems circumstances there's the allegations contained in the briefs by the or the arguments containing the grease by the government that there were changed circumstances and the judge does make reference to the fact that the palm this government of bulgari was overthrown but we also have facts in the record to show that he was subject to persecution after the government was overthrown so there's really never any clarity as to what changed circumstances we're talking about here does that mean we need to remain and for a finding on change the press are honest correct i think though that it is clear that the judge never found same circumstances at the same time really that the decision is deficient in that respect but in other respects suffered any retribution against them so i think that any finding that you would want the immigration judge to meet has actually been made and these were brought up during the proceeding so petitioner was aware of them and could read but could present his evidence  that the immigration judge's decision has been correct words are expressly if any of the following is found by preponderance of the evidence no i don't think that there was anything hard on it if a rematch were required it would be soley for the purpose of a thoughtful finding with respect to continuing had like a million dollars
understand this last argument are are you in effect saying that you can't have a parole entry that any kind of entry necessarily becomes admission under a lot on a one in thirteen a you know  where the government is not sure whether they should be properly admitted that it leaves the government no choice but to turn them away i don't know that that's what congress intended whether that statute talks about parole or not you know you're not be that's with me because my time i transit honesty one views that he overstayed that means that he applied for and was granted advance parole twice to him prior to the advance parole application he had falsely filed an once that application was adjudicated and was a denied position or then apply for asylum he was allowed to fully nations asylum request he was allowed to develop his claim before the immigration judge and the board on appeal and he had that application denied but after a form fair hearing so the issue here is whether in fact he received the due process that he was entitled to with regard to that at the prior scheme the argument that says that should have been treated as a deportation not as an exclusion or for that matter a matter i have to admit i' scheme in the sense that he is in exclusion proceedings he's not in removal proceedings therefore the arriving and definition for which he refers to in fact wasn't really at play in his case rather  however it's clear from the record that in fact he didn't make out a claim that his mistreatment was on account of a protected grant first he didn't show that there was any imputed political opinion on th living and therefore i couldn't do what they wanted me to do because i wouldn't be able to make a living so it's quite clear that he never made any sort of statement regarding his political opinion therefore none could be imputed to him secondly he hasn't made a particular group claim that he doesn't have the particularities which is required by this court to establish the social group which he claims to status the anti in few or the anti rebel it's simply too vague of terms rather and fact this case appears to be as the board described it that the n p a simply wanted to get more money from competitors and they were not seeking to  we thank you we thank both council for the argument the case just argued is submitted
judge can give an explanation for why the search conditions imposed this condition required mr ranson to submit his personal profit decision seizure any time of the day or night by any law enforcement officer of was a decision just a couple months ago by by you just leisure in mali versus parts which talked about how a parole condition can sometimes be abused by the police where police can you know without any whether something is material in criminal cases that we handle when you have the violation of the law you're looking at the question a matter reality and that goes to the jury because it's an issue of fact there are cases in this particular instance
willing to say that when we set up a corporation or something like that they were banding together in recruiting investors and you know everything that was going on in the first end at the end of the sentencing hearing at the end of the sentencing hearing actually they were the best fishing throughout the sentencing it was sort of a moving target it started out of a figure of about twenty million and then we found out this certain was but it was returned back to the investors who is really close to the seven million but in its terms of what the end result was the sentencing i think that the through the twenty million sort of prevailed in the input input from the victims being so vocal and not even being finished by the end of the hearing the court was that well i guess what i'm asking is how does he does and how is what he did different than holding yourself out as an investment broker because he didn't he didn't give people the other  the seasonal process which he actually used or the foster the scheme i would like all the schools these hordes of tension like case of united states b employment some brokerage house or something like that but it's not clear it's not delineated within that the record of the case how any of those bills that he previously or perhaps that brokerage house are being about the securities was employed by him to  he says he has a background as a broker isn't that what's more important than whether he used a brokerage skillz well they both play a part it would be considered
good morning and very afternoon our welcome to the ninth circuit here at arizona state university and i think they're both counsel for coming to phoenix and also i think the sandra day o'connor law school here at the deliberate and permitted to premeditate rather which is not the dispositive issue in our two thousand and fifteen riley opinion what we were focused on there was whether deliberation most of discrete element or first degree murder so as i look at it now i'd like your answer isn't the real issue whether at the time of the right to trial all three men's red elements had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt and and and  question about that so the question we dealt with was there whether there was a constitutional due process violation because the state in its later iterations of this changed the requirement of words you didn't have to prove defined at the time had to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt the state's trying to change that after the fact it appears and we have the due process probably that's what our first rally case said why is that wrong to to remind you that we won't be and bring any questions about this case except a part of we was meant to leave you can be sure that we won't be talking about you or your case except to say that we appreciate you coming today very thoughtful arguments there's a lot of
have a vocational benefits is against the manifest weight of the evidence the rocker that has been made is unequivocal mr johnson has been diagnosed with or respond who they found commission found as trapped and it was dr sheen with a question who said these elements are you equate it is every day life that you are in contact with so what the commission now i understand the difficulty i have for you is to establish by the manifest weight of the evidence that the commission's decision was commission's decision substantially and relies on dr sheehan whom the commission found to be reliable and credible in articulating their  decision did is is spot the reason why we're here they say that i'm page six of the decision in the record page one thousand four hundred and sixty restricted and again with the commission pointed out is that his only work restriction relating to that incident is the requirement that they were appropriate by the clubs i guess the pin down here the commission found his contact dermatit i retained an expert that the commission rejected is not believable credible and that's why i want to rely on dr shimon and the commission's decision because when you wait a minute maybe i maybe i'm missing something you're quoting kind of bury your doc you didn't kind of in any kind of work place since the allergens are common in surrounding which the general public lives and works that's why he needs vocational rehabilitation they fired him because they cordoned accommodated because the react he was experiencing wearing gloves wasn't helping it was not helping then they rely on who the vocational expert is or the responded that the commission filed more believable than m didn't have to stand up and do anything to them or record the issue that's been raised by the court is not the issue i would be ordinarily standing i agree it is not a final order however i do think that if we were to go down that road we would be stuck with the same issues here because the commission would likely make this fake net make the same determination based on a lot of the consistent with their decision and if it's consistent with their decision then somebody has got to decide what are the reasonable and necessary medical expenses now and what talking about arbitration back in this particular case i don't see how this is the
is these somatoform disorder which causes her to vacillate to depend on others to try to say what people want to hear there's a whole list of symptoms that are listed at the sentencing stage influence of others i think he made an argument he was permitted to make that argument he didn't try to put on the evidence that supported that argument and you know in terms of looking to prejudice inability to ask a question that wasn't objectionable an inability to formulate an unobjectionable question after the objection and inability to get his client to strength to gather a coherent narrative  stage that he didn't have the medical issues clearly in its mind at the time of the trial which you know i can't think what kind of a strategic decision it could have been and not understand what the medical evidence was particularly since the trial the computer with the williams out of sight and then furthermore if you look at the entire trial and the testimony the lifestyle that they lived they had a paranoid black helped helicopter view of life long before this whole kind of thing operation ever happened he was ninety three dogs were not purchased in connection with that counterfeiting operation the guns that everyone concedes they had long before this counterfeiting operation they lived a paranoid rural lifestyle that had nothing to do with counterfeiting and you have to assume that it mr williams is talking about counterfeiting when he's saying it's never enough or and he said it's never enough and he said guys with rifles that was their whole government have no objection as this court declined to consider this issue at this point but we would like to suggest that this was one case where because the second prong of strickland can't be met that it may be appropriate for the court interest of judicial economy to go ahead and side issue on the merits it does the court does occasionally do that in that situation and it would be an effective way to to dispose of the matter on the other point as to whether there's any other evidence in the record as to the intended use the firearms i think that there is first of all the fact that the two looking weapons were found in the bedroom  six she lied about the fast she lied about everything the jury was so unconvinced that they laughed at her and then counsel put on no evidence about her mental state i don't think there is any any in conduct about why someone would do that it doesn't make any sense and you take that together with counsel's conduct of the app actual trial itself where he can simply says i don't practice in federal court you know how to do this i'm not sure with the rules of evidence are he can't protecting in that conversation was the cd and putting something on it so the cd couldn't be read if you didn't have a password or something it had nothing to do with guns or physical production so all the talk about protection is talking about software
rather in writing with reasons so we were claiming that the government acted in bad faith because we submitted the application they wanted more they wanted more we gave them more in writing and they never responded time she was coming back across the border so she was in the words of the service applying for admission to the us well we were staying we were we claimed that she was a l permanent resident who was just returning well everything because she was i mean by her through the border wanting to come through again right correct and presenting and i five fifty five raise resident alien card correct and at that point well the reason i think that's somewhat important is because i don't find any laws suggest that just simply because you're probably legal permanent resident coming back through the border that all of a sudden the government has the burden of the general idea is that if you're a legal permanent resident and you leave the united states and i come back to the united states that you apply for admission and now you have the burden of proof to prove that you have the right for admission right now i guess the next point in this where we wanted to get you to go anyway and i think you're there we're really talking about i think under our law whether you did any whether your client in this particular matter then i care about and you were correct could you say that again if i fired there is any substantial evidence to sustain what the i j d in the  in her decision then i cannot i'm going to have decision even if i don't agree that's correct well i have right here and offer proof and that offer proof is that he wanted her to give up she told him no couple carnes but finally she acquiesced now if i take that offer of proof how do i find took but we're not looking to have what the evidence could be on the other side and we're looking at what do i do with the evidence in front of the i j a i guess substantial and he is helping her to buy the house that she lives there and she had recently had a child out of wedlock and she felt that he was helping her with that and so she felt obligated under his his plan he even coerced the rest of his family to come otherness wife his other two permanent residents sons and nephew they were all legal permanent residents so it was easier for him if you took all i let him take is that not an affirmative back that's the question well there was no agreement here between father and daughter there was no agreement to smuggle the children and  indicator that she kind of knew that this was the right thing to be doing and on the third time she was asked if she did get out in the greek and we believe that agreement is sufficient to qualify as an affirmative act and the record does not compel a contra that's all that's they are so we don't know whether she agreed all we know is that she knew that he had taken well it's just that we know the offer proof
testimony nearly four hundred pages over a span of two and a half years but sadly to say that transcript only portrays a part of his life part of his character sally to say the immigration immigration judge made it plain statement i'm not going to hold it against him because that's what the statute says i should forgive him for but that's not enough the motivation for why he did it is an indication of the measure of the character of the individual before the immigration judge that character that that individual person that part of this life why did he do what he did to come to the u s should be balanced against the before she came to the u s and then again in open court she said we had to fight she said those bad things and i was mad at him so i said those bad things back i wrote a letter to the u s embassy but that's not true it's true he was married it wasn't true they abandon me he's still supporting me  ask you another question the immigration judge was a little bit simple taking granted voluntary porcher maybe i said no voluntary departure an did involve cancellation of removal granted by the immigration judge but this case always only involves voluntary departure and so you know why should we apply the same rule for a voluntary departure when the stakes are you know the contingent order if the alien fails to depart so that doesn't make sense to your statutory language that we see is what's being affirmed if the respondent fails to depart as required during the thirty day period so it doesn't follow that the and or the time for an appeal expires then that then that water will become final as well so that's so that's a statutory provision that would support it in addition there's under the regs that far twelve forty one point one when the board departure and therefore then that just makes the removal of collective and we're not finding it in the first instance yes for the authority for the cancellation of the voluntary departure what's your come up or say well you can't you know you can't reduce it from sixty to thirty days but that's not the court can't do that so what's our authority for the board can just cancel a voluntary departure well the with respect to the last point that the immigration judge that there's no evidence in the file the immigration judges charge worth developing a full and comprehensive record she failed to do it in this case we see that the immigration judge in other were in the pre my finest explanation was he doesn't have a wife here he has a wife in the philippines that's that's what i thought you meant i thought that's what is the explanation was that and i mean what do you think that's a good explanation or not it's like he's marry not here you might be you know so now that i understand you mean if you married anywhere yeah he's married in the philippines he also said i lied to protect my brother from the fate they