MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
offense with the identification made by m and her observation of her assailant was made under circumstances that are known to lead to unreliable results it was across racial identification a importantly i think that there the resemblance between the sketch and the photograph is not dispositive of this issue because the description given by and then to the sketch artist was itself limited by the circumstances of the observation so again limited by the amount of time that she had the lighting and i don't think it's any surprise that she would then within memory driven in part at least by this sketch pick somebody who resembled  court of appeals found that that evidence was not conclusive in the reversal of the first conviction after the first trial and that was the only other evidence  i think one thing that sets this case apart from federal case is another state case that this is considered if the absence of an instruction a cautionary jury instruction on eyewitness identification as this court has repeatedly recognized there is the body of cases following miller's the stand your there's a balancing test that needs to be undertaken to determine whether or not the extinction of a particular type of evidence violates the right to prevent offense in this case under these facts the explosion of the evidence did however time thank you thank you pretty far cry from the careful instruction we've mentioned a couple cases i was on hicks and recon i think in one of them the instruction was for pages long dealing with how to deal with  cautionary instruction to indicate that i witness testimony is being in any way differentiated from any other testimony of the witnesses is that correct  as i understand it and the lack of a more specific instruction may be relevant on the on the issue of denial of the witness an opportunity to testify i want to address real quickly of a few of the reasons why cross examination here was insufficient on the evidence that dr loftus would have provided would have talked about factors such as the sco topic system that the body uses in dark situations the fact that mr cheatham the people to cross examine and them about the fact that the conditions were dark is an entirely different issue and much more limited and did not provide the jury with the scientific framework to discretion standard is not the standard that we use when we look at constitutional violations that's the standard we use when we look at evidence to rulings but the right to prevent a defense requires more protection than that and in federal or the court  question of whether or not an instruction was proffered by mr she done it was not and that's not the issue we raised in this case because the washington constitution is interpreted by the washington courts in cases such as the state versus holland state versus watkin it provides just one of the circumstances why or one of the reasons why the explanation of the testimony in this particular case where there was no an instruction available for there was no corroboration for the circumstances of the identification and likely to lead to
received a police report the police report says that during that night all the people all the policeman were shooting different people the information that you know from my client is that they were writing for by force these motorcycles that make a lot of noise sometimes they
still available the scare crow mean mr potato head they're still available number nine hemorrhoids closed out no more hemorrhoids number ten twinkle toes number eleven mr ed and the boogie man on the outside that you feel the night of america we might go the post early you guys are dying out i mean hello are you down there by the fence you know what i want to ask you for the parking tickets are asking me for my pictures package that is not a normal procedure that's fully standard operating procedures man just like the festivals the snakes i'm just there shut the midgets down we're i did our rock n roll live from preacher park in the last anybody else you run out of time all right let's go live preacher park for some exciting horse racing before we go here's what you can win tonight if your horse wins and only if your horse went the very first one they called in on that horse that wins because somebody is going to win will get the wicker park  gift certificate fifty two bucks to me don't worry i'll take area that was courtesy by the way of frank jahn over at north township thank you so much i love the people we get the next two people and the winner will get certificate for that sent us auto parts two locations one and has still one of the highland now i got a job to do what the heck is going on that can't be right the horse race fifty seven sixty one sixty five seventy and seventy five anybody else want to play what else nobody else i'm not i answered the phone i'm not answering the phone i'm not answering the phone all right  know it's really becoming annoying to me tony to load tony and you move charlie gets another month suspension now april the night i got to get up to the crow's nest at preacher park don't go anywhere we're ready for some exciting horse racing here we go live don't eat your peas club horse race in twelve horses go on one mile we've got nine prizes what is that word i don't know a couple hundred bucks nine people will win examine the photo judges have examined the photo and in the winter circle tonight written by l so what else can we do we have the hillbilly buffet that's almost god this is good gravy day and night here preacher park and of course the homeless valley park absolutely free every day here at parades you're of the big three winners tonight loretta you will receive the worker park memorial gift certificate fifty two bucks carrie you will receive the twenty five dollars gift certificate for friday's along with larry and jim paul sharpe job the bailiff and joe from north ham and you all will receive a twenty five dollars gift certificate for basket us auto parts i'll have all the prizes with me tomorrow night over at freddy's or you can stop by tomorrow night last look at the w g o be it miss weather forecast tonight twenty percent chance of showers partly cloudy some fog low sixty want tomorrow exactly the same with a high of seventy nine so or wherever you are that was some great hoss race the way to go boys another great day preacher park let's pack it up i'm ready to go smedley are you ready so let's go see it freddie
arrived only prevailed and that's not correct the record shows that in fact arrived in many forms someone has prevailed but some of it arrived to loose form and what happened in that case was the  it in but it left the factory in british columbia or georgia which is where these parts from the record shows that less than one percent of these products are broken when those leave the factory not by the time they arrive at the o two facility that these the great broken paths and dust cause problems in the home heating systems now whether or not they can be used i'm not sure it's not as good a product certainly  because there's a non exhaustive race examples in the statute some of which have nothing to do with transporting for example refrigeration icing ventilation and storage those are the sorts of activities which completely manufactured parts and they recycle that material back through the entire manufacturing process which includes shipping the word dry and it's terrorizing that steam it dried up again so it's a different process that manufacturers
claim or statutory claim to provide jurisdiction under real life to review the timeliness if you and third it went on to review the merits of the asylum claim and every man and that's precisely where we are today within one year and then if i look at sup aircraft three it says no no court shall have jurisdiction to review any determination of the attorney general under and we can review questions of law correct but i can't see where this is either one saying that i ought to be allowed to file out of time because they had a good reason not to file within the year and that's a discretionary the there is no right to appeal other than a statutory one right which may be taken away by congress at any moment so i think judge pius was a little bit prophetic and saying look we should have limited our ruling just it's timely but it isn't because we think they should have a fight or earlier then they'd say as a matter of law we have the year we filed within a year it's timely then we have jurisdiction but here she delays for ears she's eight years and she's basically saying would you give me a group and they certainly know number one you're really really late and we don't have a good reason to give you a break and number two even if we  logical it's all it's all very confused i will come out of time thank you issue that this court would essentially have issued an advisory opinion that is without jurisdiction to do the board of immigration  reviewable ground but as this court has noted if there is a ground on which is conclusive and that this court does not have jurisdiction it makes no sense for this court to go on to consider the merits because would imagine that in a volume practice like this that somebody just compiles outlines for the i j a needs to that they have the right scripts to use for the different circuits i don't know about the script but i think that the the i js are going to be cognizant of the relevant circuit law on that they're acting under there certainly will act in accordance with whatever circuit there their decision is subject to review but i would assume at some point hopefully that this issue w it may or may not be the case and i'm not exactly sure it seems like that the lawyer for the i am asked could easily put it in his brief this is the ninth circuit case so say which brand you're affirming you know we can certainly bring it up to the attention of the i mean what the relevant  circuit law is depending on you know which circuit the relevant cases coming out of out but you know certainly does the hope that that this should get resolved hopefully become consistent over time i'm not aware i right now i'm sorry the board of immigration appeals in the man decision did note also that extraordinary circumstances had not been matched and explained that for the reasons given by the immigration judge that that discretionary decision by the
i don't i'm not clear procedurally it was kind of messed up but i'm not clear that he actually filed a timely motion to reopen on the basis of ineffective assistance of counsel a six that constitutes the entire record well true they review the entire record but that doesn't mean that they consider granting relief that it's not asked for in the motion or petition before them at the moment what dated december twentieth two thousand  the only argument that was before the board was the argument was contained in the notice of appeal which is in the record of page one twenty two the court were to review that i think the court would say that that's basically a cursory argument basically three sentences to arguments  with stablished with a lawyer just point drop the ball well i respectfully disagree with your honor we don't know whether the reason for that requirement is to prevent collusion between counsel and the client and that if the bar complaint filed then we might you're going to have to forgive me on i can't i can't place the well to come off this case which is designed to stand relied upon b however their decision on the motion to reopen it is a rather the motion to reconsider the most and to reopen was not appeal to us so why would we consider whether they made a mistake in not accepting and not reopening to consider the late grief i think the board made him stick to begin with in march twenty
and prudent person would do under similar circumstance asking individual partners to go out and
that it was never actually filed stamped i think that distinction is crucial because once a document is much filed an orderly system requires that we trust that document more pilot is actually placed in the file and before the  did not choose to appear and were allowed so it's wrong to shift the burden on a single he didn't know what was going on he chose that way to see did anybody ever acknowledge that there no proof of service nobody knew what was there including the court and if you don't and i understand that all you have to do is let  what's the language you have to apprise the court that you have this notion out there but if you just find something without motioning you know which is required under the rules in lake county without letting anybody know that it's but i do believe that he had to bring it to the attention to the court and i don't believe this was brought to the attention of the  it's that it's a mistake that can be easily gravity i don't know if the clerk you know failed to follow some comfort procedure or if the former minister that those pages when he was for doing the work file we just don't know but it really doesn't matter filed by the clerk of the board and even in the st and nd lines of this motion this honorable honorable court asking the court to do something it's not his fault that he's again he's acting per se he's
cases looked at the federal civil procedure to see how to proceed from there the issue is about what procedures to follow after that first service and the federal courts have laid out very clearly what the service requirements would be to do that after  administrative officer tippit was active officer of that organization or as required by state law in this case the record is on disputed that the summons and complaint were never personally served upon the superintendent of the school school district which is i'm not sure i'm following your question judge remember what what my understanding is that if the parent's position on the federal rules is correct the service must be affected within the one hundred twenty days after the filing  time requires so that in in one case that the service was not timely and therefore not effective and the other case it was not effective and therefore not timely and there was never any attempt to cure that even after the deficiencies it was private the parents attention with the office of the chief administrative officer as opposed to personally giving it to the that person or it doesn't needed assistance with him or business manager those are the three individuals who can receive critically clear that substantial compliance with that requirement does not work service on anyone other than the designated official is insufficient the court held in need the tardy is no general agency rule of political ideas that statute what the parents are attempting to do here is to invoke the a b a standards for service without complying with the is timing requirements civil action it's that that's correct but the other thing that i would say is that the service requirements in the a p a what i see that you thirty four point zero five point five forty two are in trouble so the limitations is the court this court said in kenan prompts resolution of cases and commenced under the individuals with the disabilities education act is essential both the form charged in considerations and the need for pro was appropriate and should be thrown all right thank you
offenses in a piecemeal fashion so how does your proposal meet with that supreme court maxim because that would be piecemeal you're saying you can lead because it was a mess by a very by play you could always agree in indicting information what if i have a blank piece of paper what has to be on that in order for it to become an information of illinois versus a case number signed by an assistant state's attorney write this record does it is it negated if all of the information's on a piece of paper does it become something less because it doesn't have the word information written on it would be then we can know about a myriad of charges but we file that complaint and we move that along and move that along almost indefinitely and then right  what would you do you did nothing like or you were simply say it's nonsense there's no charge pe indicted but was in jail in any event under arrest and so whether or not for purposes of whether or not a commencement of prosecution of her he
spend a lot of time we do know that record could you tell us what issues you think are in front of the court which issues we have jurisdiction over because the respondent has taken the position that some of the issues you raise do not have jurisdiction to address because you failed to exhaust administrate remedies or at the  sit in the close to three year period he remained in el salvador and the i said under those circumstances people who don't even say how they know your client were correct and they don't talk about the incidents that your client talks about  but they refer to it thankfully he received some threats in two thousand and eleven which he did not really put it in his declaration so what's the problem with the i j is determination that he hadn't even shown that these incidents he was complaining about well f but he goes on to observe that he does not feel the record or links that reasonable fear to any of the grounds for persecution in this case political opinion and he doesn't pardon me evidence to support the current condition reports which the refers to and indicates that it does not provide any support for the proposition that  reports contain this or article dated february sixth two thousand and fourteen by roger of noriega in the article he describes recent disclosure made a pact with the violence allegedly paying gangsters to mobilize voters and intimidate opposition supporters this is exactly what petitioner is describing exactly what he says that he's afraid of that if he goes back to a solid or he's a member of the arena party become be subjected to violence by these gangs at the behest of the f m l n parties so that he is in fact it's his argument if he's being persecuted by the government because of his political opinions for the all do you have any questions
there and i've given us an opportunity to address the section one one issue and constraining the claims away which impact on the first point even if you accept the that and transmit to original that claims require certain operations on encrypted data that certain operations on an encrypted or original data what this is saying is the source site appliance is going to  to the facts here i think it is a theory of how someone skilled in the art would interpret parts of mccann and what c the petition on whether that is is correct which that is correct once you get into a motion to amend the game changes because the board is being asked to issue new claims and they are asked to do it in one shot and i think in say the board just throws up its hands say well nobody's talking back to us work or if for example this case regret had not identified a piece of evidence in that prior art level here's an example that is more five which is pretty good word says look even and even if we be with you i'm a pretty good one this other one clearly disclose it we can't issue these claims because clearly it discloses the fact that they didn't r in the original proceeding with respect to the original claims or where there is a motion to hand how far the board can go into courting from th
matter u bangkok and so we know he was competent then but we don't know whether he was confident after august of ninety ninety three and we don't know whether he was restored to competency at a point in time in the five years between the date his  you will certainly your honor if he is tied up against his will that would be a next hurdle force making it impossible for him to file timely assuming no weather circumstances that say what you know i of the petitioner tied up in some ward unable to get access to this legal defense he has been provided medication for his medical condition and when he takes as the records show he is able to his medication he is fully functional excuse me or on our assets our time well again your honor there is nothing there's nothing showings out he was incompetent or whether it was impossible for him to file these the federal petition in on time and there's no need for have a nature hearing there's nothing to evidence he's not submitted in the sense that correct that is correct but i would go one step further to say that even during this period where he  ability of him to file despite having his medical or mental condition it would be disingenuous to say well he has if you take a medication or he's been diagnosed by some person at some point is having a problem though he has justified the need for hearing whether it's impossible for him to have filed on time when there is other records are there's other evidence and facts before the court which he has not thank you very much and i hope you're feeling better
as she wanted to show him the firearms in the home and had and removed that for safety but the deputy in knowledge that this was not witnessed standard actually standing here when the deputy was questioned on the stand about that does that make a difference more information from her from his and hers you want to additional information right he wanted to get into the home to use that information so whether he was also you mean her as a victim he failed to tell her that she did not have to at the trial that he had his wife purchased a gun because he knew as well and that he couldn't do that so we actually have direct evidence in the record on the right and i think the problem calais that's why the stipulation is are routinely made is to keep the jury from let it through to the government from from making from what it is all over the court room yes that is that is of course correct but the problem is understand what would have happened had been indicted against him been correct not been to facts and we don't know we don't know what which had what it what would have followed if he had had the protection of course rather but to the extent there's any type of conflict here it is a court resolved that in favor of even morrow i think there's another there's another part of the district court to gush in of the evidence that's important and it said it  said and i was in a difficult position here today and what it was acknowledging or what it was referring to was the fact that she told the grand jury something slightly different than she told the court at the suppression hearing and seeing knowledge and at the suppression hearing hearing she argues she cooperated simply because she felt as she how to the record player that she cooperated because she was a victim of a domestic violence incident and she was being treated as such and c gave her consents nonverbally and she see chart testimony establishes that she says navarro asked me where the guns were located they both agree that usually understood there were firearms in the home before they started speaking on the give him that status and the statute which alerts him to what is being charged with the grand jury's role has not been trampled on in any way that for mr om and there really isn't my my felony status before but now i find for some reason it is a big changes to me for the jury to hear about us because now i know the government has to prove it it's just the proof would have been overwhelming and would have made the case worse for him