MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
right and i will tell you both the at the microphone in front of you as you may not always match or amplification it's just for recording the argument so if you would keep your voices up so that everybody in the courtroom can hear and using its discretion to reinstate the appellant so on your first point your real criminal conduct is nat included in the provision that says absolutely anybody who has committed conduct criteria for eligibility whether they're mandatory or discretionary and then the board's consideration no whatever it is that the c p d to chime in with respect to a particular candidate and if the  wrong on and telling him he was not eligible for employment credits that that the c p d treated his felony as a discretionary disqualification the board i was fourteen when i was trying to fit in with the cool kids they took a girl to the woods i was there i helped him hold her down but i didn't assault her and i pled guilty because i was there and i didn't wanna i didn't want to have to deal with the trial the board could say you were fourteen you know fourteen year old student done things and now you're twenty eight and we're going to home to look there when the c d do we send it back to the c p d we don't send it back to the board we send it back to the c p and said do you think this one instance of domestic violence is enough to disqualify this person and that goes back to because of this needed to you which probably we do but there's a difference between dopey fourteen year olds and grown ups and even if we wanted to follow the whole trilogy and all the cases that have followed after that even if we want to do that reagan had the authority to rewrite the police department's rule the department now maybe maybe the lesson here is they should change the rules or take another look at them or whatever but that's not our job we can't make them do their so so that chicago police department and not the board the problem is it seems to me that gets to decide what the what the basic eligibility for the job yes what do you felony to which the minor pled guilty was for example aggravated battery that's a group made because it occurred on a public way that somebody on the street wished him on the criminal misconduct should be an exception that of course is you know that would be without regard to how often or how serious instead with the supernatural it was and here is the focus on how serious a crime is a most in consideration how often if if you have if
you don't have any dispute the items that are attached to the complaint are probably a clue to how the i guess another way to put it is if there are options that dope put her in a pail because of standing then how could it be to her preferred option is quote necessary w or suggested it's not independent access he's going to stay at any of these places well i think  opinion to support her but notion that she suffers when she has to stand here and wait for someone to retrieve the walker i recall three or four years he pleaded or at least three occasions but walker was not it's awkward for us to just cut this off sue quickly here without making sure the other side had an opportunity to do some some discovery bring in some medical experts to tell us that all your kind of people injuries people suffer from requires a transport vehicle that allows her to be in close proximity to a toilet at all times additionally the potential for accident necessitates access to a shower for these reasons i believe that another room tha what the doctor has a pint and then i think that pain is a that's a fact in the case that a doctor has a pint what's necessary but this was preferable and for her well it was necessary but it started actually in the walk all the time and then it sort definition of necessary can be credited to cover every possible scenario and i think on this case where you have a woman who's met the need is the use of the water next she can't stand and wait and whose are not there says well she doesn't need to leave it sitting in the the first instance should we seem to need the necessary is broad i don't i don't understand why we should say it's a broad word or understand that we should construe it merely we should construed in its ordinary is serious means you have to hide it you can flourish without it and i see a woman who kid use a valet parking option but prefers to park in front of the building for this coveted parking spot she waited necessary the lobby is preferable doesn't that open up the fact that we need it and that that you are back down why would he present in your complaint including the letters the alternative supremely relevant really give you a another hypothetical if somebody needs iron i don't know if you have an iron deficiency you need me more higher than with typical person i diet right the person could soon say you know the facility where you get they're not giving me enough my dad's not getting enough iron and it's making me sick right so
give the defense an opportunity to as you said cure the problem the same as the state has it in in terms of filing  it your client's going to get more and more time nicer well if if he doesn't change the thirty five for you guys to appropriate minimum it's going to be more argue one way and then come back and wait in line and lie and wait for the day before he said to get out well i mean that's the argument that could be made but there is a period of time in which it gets filed and then  they go off on a mistake while it's we were all operating under that the substance of count fifteen is what we thought we got the wrong count number as opposed to anything fifteen you know you're going to be if the record bears that out i don't know that that might be the case i don't know if you know that from the record here because it bothers me too that everybody in the courtroom missed this it seems much more toward justice cricket's question a lot of things could happen but the cases were heard charges were dismissed these two were left they were still can't know that the state's sentencing hearing and you know the judge took into account all the evidence on each of the charges and provision in mitigation some of them probably were crossed i mean some of them he said this applies here and then when he talked about the sex assault said this this aggravation applies also here so what's the logic in separating them their separate sentences he said he had to do with the way he did it on the mistake was made on the second charge so why is was submitted for the defendant i assume on both cases it wasn't labeled for murder only and so you know it just seems that there would be it wouldn't be the first judicial economy and secondly it kind of nonsensical to conduct t know one of the you know one of the factors in aggravation mitigation that would affected both but you know was improperly considering different has raised that argument he's raised a very specific argument related only to the sexual assault is that you're not serving you're serving more you're serving one hundred percent of your time comparing to the sex assault so i would argue that there's nothing there records that supports this theory that the court gave had one number in min blind plea that had two different sentences for two different crimes although there was one sentence but as a shallow back on this as this court send you could separate you can separate it doesn't have any effect  court were to find that both would go back then both sentences were bad and the sentence in the state would not be precluded from asking you know for more time so that if there are no other questions it's an interesting point if i do read a lot of cases the last week but i believe that at the sentencing hearing the status for fifty that's correct so your position would be they can ask for up to fifty it's not because they aren't necessarily argued here i think the supreme court might say something like that if it takes too long i mean everyone i've looked at it came very quickly to mean pressure in the castleberry case it came right after they were told
and so to these things because any issue with respect for the jury putting aside the jurisdictional questions for days but i will say the prism through which the court should look at these issues frankly there's this discussion about what the intention was of judge rather than a trial court with respect to the issues arising out of the september twenty second two thousand and sixteen order and counsel is represented to the that judge already made no consideration for respect to the issues arising out of a souter in the consequences of his ruling and perhaps the invalidation of the premed everyman and its effect on probate rights and that's a scene correct because if you look at the record at seven fifty three and hearing that occurred on august twenty ninth two thousand and when he ruled on the decision to to invalidate the premarital agreement in addition later in the same argument john riley specifically states that he is going to consider the parties to the issues of whether or not this is a dismissal with prejudice or without prejudice and because a resume can be modified any time i think at this point so  reiterated my statement that this is a finding that clearly applied to a statute of limitations or safe which is a factual determination made by the trial court not they should raise that issue within the time to appeal to the september
matter is that you have a low income individual who testified under skilled a way that he had no money was misled into thinking that because he had no money he couldn't afford an attorney to do what needed to be done and so it was you know the fact that he had a period of time  might be in a different status but here this really testify consistently and that's as we've discussed crying about why he should be outside when your bar but even when you first appear in front of the immigration judges in denver he thought he was using was not was no longer he has testimony about why he's proceeded as soon as he found out that he did an opportunity to do that and so that's put him within the extraordinary circumstances category area for some reason that the court felt that there might have that there should be remanded for the immigration judge actually exercise its discretion and evaluate this individual testimony in light of these individual circumstances rather than the broad
proprietor today this great store sells everything in hardware and paint but features plate glass they have special equipment for installing plate glass and all types of glass for every use seven stalls many of norristown  storefronts on main street congar company now the largest general insurance business in the county featuring engineering so they are an industrial insurance insurance a cli speaking mr evans is a good man to know totten brand of quality groceries a progressive store but fast delivery service ten trust company mail and sweet speech is the largest financial institution in montgomery county serving over twenty eight thousand customers capital funds and reserves are well over two million five hundred every golfer private club or otherwise should play jeffersonville because it offers you a real hospitality the very best the best greens none of which are more than seven minutes walk from the clubhouse and low hundred three mr block purchased the only central presbyterian church that's sweet and west may remodeled it into this montgomery county's largest the problem a star with a record of fifty business with seventy thousand square feet of display space they show a great variety of fine furniture and howard and not well pleased with what they saw lady of course they purchased the ring at sid richmond one twenty three west main street who features jewelry on credit with no budget charges since logan the man who believes in you therefore he will trust you howard said
quick turnaround verdict what sitting in our position are we supposed to infer and terms of the reasonableness of the state courts conclusion that was that but then you're faced with the standing presumption that jurors follow instructions and here they got an instruction on what to do that covered much of the same things as the great article it covered much the same thing  aside from any of the presumption would be overcome if in fact don't you think if in fact the parade article was introduced to the very after that and no i don't believe that times those is that definition is discussed by the whole jury but in this case the parallel to that the analogy all albeit just an analogy would be in this case the dynamic of the jury is precisely what the raw arts article deals with the whole soul holdall so in that sense the extraneous material isn't just a generalized statement it also includes that really directly applicable passage certificate extrinsic evidence that the court still found there was no prejudice and this is far different in terms of the article not at all the dressing to be the defendant here nor the law trial judge did not instruct the jury not to read the newspaper if all of the jurors had read this article which was in their newspaper let's say that that would not have been a problem is simply read it right ye about how removed from the is the case it is that anywhere close to that removed has been found to be prejudicial and the district court you know even assuming misconduct found there was no prejudice based on the nature of the evidence california court found that there was no prejudice and what standard of review were they using on that they don't so i trap him and they frame it as reasonable probability they event right that's what we do but the question is what difference then do we give the state court on its finding and no prejudice seems to mean we'd be basically rendering chaplain and nala to you by saying with the make any difference what they do as long as you say no prejudice we can't appoint grokked in our own review find prejudice or self and there but i don't think we maybe that's how brecht works but in any event i have little trouble saying we should then defer or give any weight to the state courts finding of no prejudice if they're not evaluating prejudice under the proper constitutional stand
that if he understood then it doesn't seem like at the end of that period he would have thought that he had been sentenced to too much trouble presumably he agreed
murder of his wife holding his children at gunpoint he had to relocate your honour's because of the year for his life because he had had two armed men appear outside of his home immediately after his wife  your honor he he had stayed in very in different parts of mexico and that's correct but the reason he had to do this the reason he went from one city to another was because he was running from a hospital that had just abducted and killed his wife frankly he was he was running for his life he wasn't safely relocating he wasn't on sabbatical or some sort of your state i'm not really answering that question because there is a different part of the inquiry you don't necessarily have to return to the state if if if it was returned to colima that would be a different situation but if people can safely be located somewhere else then that i mean the court that can defeat your argument when you're covering that with the fact that his wife was already abducted and killed and his brother in law was killed by the cartel that shows a severe feel for fear for someone's life and it's understandable why he is why he's running away and  a month without any threat to harm him during that time is evidence that he could relocated substantial evidence supporting the ages discriminat applicant was also hiding somewhere for three weeks there and how did that other family members that are living there safely that was my other point you just have the fact that there are other family members living there does nothing for this argument they're not did as well together they are the only ones who have investigated into the cartels activities they are the only ones who are similarly situated all of the cases that the government up relies upon on this point all of those applicants and their family members were in the
as i know you have no answer except the good of the united states s hundred miles faster than the yanks are to newer model overlooking the city of washington is the legislative center of american life the u s capitol as our country faces important challenges at home and abroad the new eighty second congress convenes to chose many changes among both republicans and democrats new faces include quick new republican senators are carlson of kansas dirksen of illinois and butler of maryland twelve years represented a freshman senator former congressman dirksen defeated senate majority leader look butler upset veteran miller tied up republican senators milligan of colorado taft of ohio and wary of nebraska now lead a party which has got the democratic senate majority the only two  the workshop of these men in the capitol building has been washington laid the cornerstone in seven hundred ninety three been continually rebuilt and repaired to meet the needs of a growing democracy last year congress moved out for the latest repair with the reinforced republican minority changing the voting lineup the house chamber itself also has a new look but the famous portrait of washington and the webster plaque familiar to tourists are still there a generation and he's still at least as spry as any  now a couple of daffodils from the professor's garden followed by a chunk of rubber tubing with all the accent is on fun there is a straightforward scientific reason this contraption is designed to show the pressure possibilities of liquid air when the liquid air grows warmer and becomes a gas again it expands rapidly in fact which delights the professor and which he doesn't want his class to forget all the liquid air is expanding and blowing up the balloon and here's the rubber tube shatters like  very interesting professor but what about that and
well you know maybe
is whether that is something that is increased risk of over that of the general public which is more to my accident argument but i believe the strongest argument is causation here because  not the c m c joint that's a completely separate part of the body and again there's no indication of any relationship to her in those records then  don't have i mean it knows the fence is because of the notice of the thumb you know i mean she told somebody you work that her and she had pain in her hand and she left work early and she went to the which she says she had pain before now it's only one reference but it does say she had this problem before and so you have that and you have the lack of a diagnosis of the phone till the treating doctor once and examining the actor that said this isn't really so i think the commission and the commission says you know the evidence testimony appears consistent in support of the petitioner it's a statement made thirty two thousand time it is a business all get out and so she does what she has to do and she also did she says pacifically when i did that i heard a pop and i felt great pain pain like i'd never help felt before to drop back bit george talks about she had this problem before no shia shia one mention to dr traina about hand pain and that was way before that's it no decision or nothing one wa specifically in their written decision that the surveillance doesn't do anything say anything against what was testified to the fact america case is really consistent the commissioner also mentions that with regard
have been proven and discovery i do have evidence to include e mails witnesses recordings photos and documents to show that the defendants were in violation of the law and their policies concerning hiring practices  let me to request that we queued all of the judge but she refused well here i am i am urging the higher court to vacate the judgment and what is district court to return my case of a little court and to start over with a new and impartial judge and a judge brody's decisions for granting the motions to dismiss st or communications act wiretap facts and potential f m r i claim for failure to state a claim and declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her state law instead the kitchen alleges that the motion to dismiss should not have been granted because she was denied due process when she was not afforded the opportunity to take discovery or have a full trial incorrectly arguing that a case may not be dismissed without the opportunity to st take also the search for the st time on appeal without any basis that the transcript recorded at the initial conversion conference was somehow improperly transcribed to fail to explain how the alleged transcription issue would warrant reversal of any decisions in any alleging a much wanted to dismiss that that quaint concerning the wiretapping allegation anything involving an electronic footprint or data data
them from informing will ring any information documents or things to certain public officials relating to the commission of the crime so when you look at those two at the very least then don't bot this is about intimidation and keeping somebody from reporting to a law enforcement officer at your charge but also it really adds to the interference with the administration of criminal justice and that's really where we differentiate storage dissemination or usage of criminal history in record information and take a step back and answer my initial question which is at the very least don't those two recitations that i started talking about this i'm looking at fifteen twelve the federal statute b three is not just about job this is about law enforcement it's not just about the commission of a crime it's possible commission of a crime oh my f b i says you missing category is administration of justice and we know then is that we don't need a strict overlap this is not a traditional categorical approach this is a relating to approach by is neutral justice justice related to foreseeable official things once we're talking crimes everyone the police are getting involved because they're thinking about a criminal prosecution leading to a prosecution in court and a conviction and so even within th different coming that was a case where the defense was just directed at the principle of a crime not of the justice system at all it was in a mission keeping your mouth shut it was not an act getting in the way this is a just sort out those destructive elements subsequently different from the three and the two would implicate the violation of conditions of probation supervised release who will release pending judicial proceedings they which explicitly contains a requirement that the crime have to do with official proceedings which of course be three here doesn't contain that requirement and fifteen twelve hours indicate to sustain infection under fifteen twelve be three as simply being the possibility of an investigation into a federal offense do you agree with the petitioners  has to do with investigative proceedings which are the sort of thing that under b three are the types of behavior that are that are part of that saturate so for the control reduction apprehension detenti towards somehow inhibiting investigations into criminal proceedings or judicial proceedings themselves so your point is that the administration of justice is florida's and bast there media disconnect between the mens rea of the statutes although i think working at ninety one zero two it's still directed at so that's certainly an issue that hasn't been an issue either before the board or i believe even before the court the argument has been ok thank you thank you issue i don't think it's the way that's just and the idea that you have to do that that audience has been different and the issues have been different and
hearing in ninety five he talked about  continuously disable after that time since there was a gap in treatment and really there was nothing until nine hundred ninety three when he suffered a brain hemorrhage and even at that time he was hospitalized for ten days and