MLCommons/peoples_speech_v1.0 huggingface dataset:
the defense counsel asked her if in fact had distributed it's been across the street and in fact had there been a second person a third person that we went into the gangway and she said no at that point especially in this case where it appears that defense counsel simply didn't know what was on tape here when he puts it on and they go through it he says i thought it was going to show something else and he even thinks some point that perhaps he's got the ball if he comes back on to quail the next day he says well actually i was thinking of a different time so he doesn't know what's on the tape and there's no reasonable rational strategy rather it has to be the reason for the determination well be it to satisfy prejudice under strictly just has to show that the outcome unfair when house conduct is appears to be directly what led to the judge is guilty the judge never mentions reasonable under prevailing professional law and the other way he wouldn't put in a video that shows your client putting at committing the crime and the effect right i mean especially not especially it hits like this where you've seen that the ably where defense counsel on cross elicited evidence of other interactions between the defendant and another defendant in drug case and then the defense counsel start yes and i think what we're taking here is we're taking a record and we're looking at it analytically it with you know the ability to argue one way or the other i think what's happening here is that there's actually only way we can do it well if i'm saying that at the time  was the one sitting and in the chair and he was the one that was determining whether or not what she was seeing and what she was describing was properly attributed to each of the facts or suggesting that there was i'm sorry that there was something else going on that was reflected in the record no reason for the leak at the court was then resolve to determine that our door to believe in the credibility of off some merit w he had never gotten that videotape then the people could have gotten that videotape there's nothing to suggest that there was anything about this videotape that wouldn't be entered into evidence and certainly in the court would be seen on that videotape exactly what he  that day the state didn't do either of those things and i think the record indicates then that the state really didn't intend to introduce that additionally arm and see the last thing i want to touch on is the standard for prejudice is not whether without this video mr give it would have been found guilty it's rather h households unreasonable conduct in putting on this video that became the basis of fighting doesn't undermine the judge's guilty verdict just does not make sense the video settle the issue of identification
give me an example of how the park district who would replace the executive director without being obligated to pay two years of salary or seven yes that what they  period or i wonder how many year period is there arguably no change in the work composition i said how long how many years is there no change in the board composition so arguably under those facts and under the ruling of the trial judge his interpretation of this code how long could the contract be provided to the a board right that's that's where you're going on that so whether there are the third question that i'm asking you is the composition of the board that is obligated by the contract the three year but oh this would be a personnel matter which would normally be an executive session and the only thing that would happen in an open meeting would be an and discussed and ask for time to discuss the issue executive session action is where maybe action is taken but input is the reason for the open meetings that right  the session will go less well i'm just saying yeah but the purpose of the open is meeting actors to inform the public that this topic is going to be discussed in public has a right to be put on the agenda to address the topic issue a written decision
one quality involved in this case mr de la due claim is that she is the only person who's actually ever been prosecuted under these financial statute there has never been the first one that ever violated the statutes i don't know there's no proof of that one where the somebody's got to be a first but the fact that he's black is not the sole reason he was being prosecuted as he indicates that there is racially disparate impact here that there are other cases in the prosecuted so he believes that it is racially motivated he believes the whole history of this litigation in which he was the foundation for his belief that somebody say something to him that somebody make an announcement was there some kind of press story voting rights act seems to take a little bit more of an expansive view of that in that if there's a federal statute that one can claim immunizes the activity in some way prevents the state from doing the cannot show that the state financial code violations with which he was charged involve conduct which is authorized for immunize by any federal equal civil racial  make claims that there was an amended complaint filed that certainly seems a procedural pleading issue i understand i was not the trial but i do understand that that was litigated in the state court crawford's issue it's my understanding that the defendant below waived his right to criminal hearing proffered subsequently came out i'm not aware of any published decisions at this point but there was argument in the state courts the crawford does not apply to pretrial probable cause determination is the cross word applies to sixth amendment trial rights that was litigated that was heard i don't i know that counsel does have additional pending petitions for rid of rights in the state courts or that should he be convicted of the financial code violations with which he is charged that there is no state appellate review procedures available to him he can enforce a facially discriminatory state law either that or it's applying to and or rachel i believe in that particular case there was a trespass statute and as apply the i believe that the defendant has not shown and cannot show that there are not alternative remedies available to him in the state courts he has not been denied access to available bring a murder what's referenced as a motion in equal protection argument or a claim of discriminatory prosecution in the state courts he can pursue  state it wouldn't happen in los angeles but it might happen in riverside county never meet the second prize and that hypothetical i believe with enough court in a criminal matter in a criminal matter the state court can still proceed you just can't proceed to judgment which is i understand it means that the court could actually even have a trial on the matter into a formal judgment until the defendant is allowed at
in this case the claimant was seeking follow medical treatment further elbow injury eleven days after sustained injuries that correct correct yours was neither authorized nor obligated to keep this particular appointment and to clean it as a result his travel to the medical clinic was not the required duty of his employment she drove her own vehicle when you she they arranged for everything family couldn't speak english so the employer was nice enough to provide them with someone to translate for  did she in she was asked whether she had any place she preferred to go she soon had known and then he said a lot of people like you say mary's if she wished to go there she could make an appointment to go there st mary's they suggestion it's pretty good gracious me and she acquiesced they had a coaching marriage because she couldn't speak english so media in the arranged for the appointment what the employee's supervisor and the company nurse testified that the employee was neither authorized nor obligated to keep this particular appointment so employer sanchez went there to assist the claimant correct and provide translation services so she could get the follow up treatment that she needed she was clear on what to do the day that he was referring t
but there was some allegations of high praise being for the food and the petitioner claimed well was my client simply accidentally knocked that grease on his foot but one thing that was over a couple of comments at  then we hear any other incident in two thousand and fifteen which was in august and that was the physical altercation that took place between in the big game by corey to the petitioner my client hurling racial slur at her the police came they took photographs she also found harassment the stage to fight harassment and goes on to say that there are certain behaviors that are presumptuously would c accomplish purpose reason under the circumstances that would cause a reasonable person remove this risk and does cause a person emotional distress or the petitioner in this case in the stress so do presumptions or conduct
it with respect to the prong of hiring someone who is totally unnecessary where they didn't even have the prior employee  know with respect to two of the employers the the actions that were being taken in order to try to unionize yes decision of the circuit at one eighty a third fifty five where the same claim of right analogy was extended to a similar extortion statute on the theory that the word use of the word working the facts in amman's where they were seeking a higher wages they were prepared to pay nothing if i remember correctly they did explode a whole factory or something like that
lawyer protects all your other rights and judges are you know one of the very careful before they let someone go pro se if you have some reason to believe that if there isn't a p c actually that there might be some problems here even if the judge just want to kick the can down the road a little bit just to sort of you know was so in that sense when the defendant says to the judge i don't really know anything about this or i don't hear that it's still in the case are you saying there's some case out there that says th then and there we got a problem because he wants to have a jury come in and hear a death penalty case to do it so i think there might have been a real good indicator right then and there that there might have been a problem with the defendant set up and not without the statements i don't know but it certainly it could be but the question is really whether you take those out is there or is there any indication that the jury might not a person who is shot in the face radioed in trail subring is going to believe they're dying even if they're receiving medical treatment is going to believe they're dying and well she's not in a trauma center and she's in a hospital room that is lodged in her brain in the base of her skull and isn't coming out she believes stat is a minute that's what we see all three of these statements dying decision that we should make an appeal should the trial court make that decision after hearing witness told there's a very interesting question because at the very last this is a reunion for hearing on the issue it's not a and for a new trial but there is enough evidence in the record for this court to plead to find that she he intended to prevent her from testifying against her at one for all three statements and at the very least even if it was wrong it is to stand a reasonable doubt this is this is enough evidence to convict the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt we have the son
at the second what is the dramatic invention using here suddenly people realize they can hang these these cables in a way that they didn't have crosstalk they did get kinky which creates noise and feedback  if we're going to say that all those patents are invalid there would essentially be no patents because you know or know that your reexamined which are found to be valid you know that's not the case because more than fifty percent on your be changed trying to figure out here what and in fact they didn't in fact they had to stand before right and they had to jail ogled better all right those wrong there but nobody ever combined them and the reason why is because there was all these cross purposes term because we know from the secondary consideration is that nobody had done it really is us trying to guess what that person's orders to what it would have done but that's not proper here in the proper things to look at the testimony the testimony all the  because nobody was motivated to combine them because they were all these cross purposes you wanted to have different types of things and some of the elements of the record are these called bridle plugs cable ties a cable type you'll find your people were looking at doing other things because they thought that they didn't want to have the say their motivation was to completely eliminate it to have this completely useless that enabled requires that well it hasn't been completely construed t they had a right to copy the book but they didn't have a right to sell in the way they were if they were just going to put these in supermarkets that would be fine but all the evidence is that they used it in advertising to simply for as market specifically for using communications cable specifically for going in them that they were not suing them for making a profit were suing them producing others and contributing to other people's infringement because they're telling people you
during the trial he said quite frankly i don't want to win this at this point i'm troubled because i heard her testimony earlier and she hear it clearly she she clearly said we didn't touch this we didn't use them when referring to seven days later by looking at the building records they retained counsel to examine it that's when the first billing started thirty days after the back or thirty five days after that they first filed a motion which was filed days before we moved ou kind of like a standard
particular off x situation you had the the secure dad was american national going for about nine million eight hundred thousand dollars and we're going to this is both companies after the assignment he was the advice all right for the trustee he works for the trustee he would he have a division by the trustee or his company did i and steal mr posing with health insurance back for the trial court as to whether you know whether this guy was just you know in collusion with the defendant or whether he was well i basically when he entered the make entire case he read that and he said he you can work two hands and basically they said well you know you take on her ational bay they get paid one hundred percent they don't care about the other five point eight million dollars to the unsecured nobody yet paid no unsecured creditors got settlement and so i am still was owed a lot of money it also purchased whitman at the public option and hadn't paid for that because it had this credit in this account and so the bank wanted to settle everything at once with one document and everybody signed and there wasn't anything wrong with that and there wasn't anything in proper on stool as a separate entity from the beginning it was it was treated as a separate entity by the bank it was to use a separate entity my mr hose and it was treated as a they had and that's why in the beginning when the assignments made everybody expects all of the creditors to be paid on the the appraisals all of the estimates of value the company would have the shareholders receiving money after everything was done but no one of the things that goes horribly wrong is the essig me you could nauruan the advice of marco's in n c at the head of canal decides to go ahead with an option that had been rescheduled for september twenty two thousand  mistake and that's part of the reason why the estimated values of the company go in to these sons was a large group that was coming up and that's what creates a lot of money to pay the  wrong with the auctions from a for on point of view there was nothing with the auctions that showed that the massive news she certainly was not  providing the line of credit that allows the companies to go forward by remaining people paying their debtors paying suppliers for cash operating cash the bank is providing the operating  were found important is that the secured creditor did not get paid in the bank walked away without satisfaction in the unsecured creditors we're not going to be paid here and that wasn't a mark of his decision certainly wasn't something that he
so we have a very pinion as to whether the claim is condition following the main one nine hundred ninety three accident we're pleased forever preclude her from working and that's what the commission based it as so why is that wrong because on dr two reasons the medical edge the commission the trial court on the brain does not a and which is ever more present you seem to be all over the place but the real crux of the issue is for this tribunal to decide is the decision against the manifest weight can you tell us the summary it's a simply focusing only on it if you forget about all these great to think accidents mean i can't recall if it did a three or four doctors sore and most of the recommended pain management she had she had no she was fired by or player on june sixteenth and i do ninety three she had no benefits
about twenty four weeks went by to the date that the complaint was filed the complaint was filed on the twenty fourth of june and no songs was even issued by play define that date and actions if he did for example ok we're talking about not only the players themselves who we're talking about people that were there watching the tourney take place so we take this case well i guess it would be true your honor what in the end in the end what the case to try and get the police records to find out more about the incident itself if you could you know we were finally served in december it was during holidays we did ask for an extension which was granted however there were no case management did snow really nothing going on this case that was affected by our  that any of that the sterling was unintentional is really not to be considered about granting this is we're supposed to be looking at the objective reasonable diligence that the plaintiff appellant utilize in serving these two defendant therefore difficult to find because there are no college although i think that's the easiest way to find someone is when you're at a school or college i think it's extremely easy easy to find these people
it's really difficult to tell whether he just continued he did it because he's realized the police are realized not because of the call but because of the situation on the luckiest man in the world you're going to go ahead and do what you do what you did the word canine leap out at you you knew ok i'm done for that's why the issue needs to be brought up and that's why the issues need to be explored so that we wouldn't be sitting here asking these questions and you he said that there also was a question whether it matters whether defender of the quest i've still unclear as to why it doesn't matter i think you're going to argue if the
matter as far as the findings and this is where not concerned as far as the closeness of evidence as far as where the evidence is so closely that balance that they a subtle power of their office when they are going to or a jury because there is a special power in the in the state who's fighting for the victims so you have to be very weary of not using that weight and that power trying to be
testimony of dr want thermostats to speak to the deputy who was behind him according to the deputy doctor walked him completely around to speak to the deputy but all of the evidence including the testimony of will you little a school well i won't pursue that but you know if you if the if this court is prepared to rule that because of that whether he looked over his shoulder and again started talking to the officer or turned around and faced him an watch his testimony that that i'd love to read says what talking about dr wall i realize that he was being argumentative with me and that there wasn't any point to for all of this because the situation and at that point did you give him a directive and direct instruction or order to leave the location yes and he agreed to comply with that order did me no not   then eagles are to say i don't remember if i asked if the car when the car was stopped or the car was moving and he never makes clear to the deputy that he has some sort of a problem if you look at the ninth circuit cases that have ruled that hand cuffs are excessive force there's my hands are numb and even then it's the vehicles moving i doubt that it would have been proper reasonable for the for the officer to do it as i think is the third circuit said there's a clear problem between the circuits and whether handcuff so it doesn't become an issue anymore i don't know why courts don't follow the to procedural rules and more it's not an issue if it's not in the pretrial conference order that oh edge of course never made it to the pretrial conference order and there's  excited in my brief that says it's done to then it's done and i think there's a reason it wasn't put you under because he knows he wasn't slammed up against the car and and thrown down on the hood the way he claimed and deprecated in his pants the way claims that only came up him three times he wouldn't leave i think the officer was justified in putting handcuffs on and i and i respectfully disagree with the court that it was a violent attack on mr wall i don't know how many times is right how many times you have the ask somebody leave before they do  constitutional deprivation you first decide was there a constitutional deprivation second was the act that constituted the constitutional deprivation something that was well known at the time you get past those two questions then you get to argue whether or not the force used in this set of circumstances rose to the level of excessive remember saussy leg was a case in which yeah actually whether it reasonable are right but whether or not what the officer did was reasonable under the circumstances that becomes the question for the jury if they had with that if assuming the worst that they had  qualified immunity is not it fails it's a merely different prosecution that's correct and as a result of that there has to be an early determination by the court so that we don't proceed with the don't put a motion for summary judgment that there was qualified immunity that's true however the cases are replete they come down in june they come down as recently as january twenty third of