00:01 - >>HELLO AND WELCOME TO THE

00:02 - PITTSBURGH COURTROOM OF THE

00:04 - PENNSYLVANIA

00:04 - SUPREME COURT FOR ORAL

00:06 - ARGUMENTS FROM THE COURTS APRIL

00:07 - 2022

00:08 - ARGUMENT LIST. I'M COREY WOODS.

00:10 - AN APPELLATE ATTORNEY WITH

00:11 - WOODS LAW OFFICES. AND I'M

00:13 - JOINED TODAY BY MY COLLEAGUE

00:14 - TIM RILEY, A TRIAL ATTORNEY WAS

00:16 - CONNOR RILEY FRIEDMAN AND

00:18 - WHY CLERK. THE PENNSYLVANIA

00:20 - SUPREME COURT IS ONE OF THE

00:21 - OLDEST APPELLATE COURTS IN THE

00:22 - NATION. IT SITS ATOP

00:24 - PENNSYLVANIA'S JUDICIAL BRANCH

00:26 - AS THE FINAL ARBITER OF

00:27 - PENNSYLVANIA LAW OF COURSE

00:29 - COMPOSED OF CHIEF JUSTICE AND

00:30 - 6 JUSTICES AND PRIMARILY HERE'S

00:33 - DISCRETIONARY APPEALS FROM

00:34 - PENNSYLVANIA'S INTERMEDIATE

00:35 - APPELLATE COURTS. THE

00:36 - COMMONWEALTH COURT AND SUPERIOR

00:37 - COURT WHICH INVOLVE COMPLEX

00:40 - ISSUES OF LAW. THE COURT ALSO

00:42 - HERE'S MANDATORY APPEALS IN

00:43 - CERTAIN TYPES OF CASES SUCH AS

00:45 - CRIMINAL CASES IN WHICH THE

00:46 - DEATH PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED

00:47 - ENSURING THAT THE LAW'S

00:48 - CORRECTLY APPLIED TO THE FACTS

00:50 - OF THOSE CASES.

00:52 - THE FIRST CASE THE COURT WILL

00:53 - HEAR TODAY IS COMMONWEALTH

00:54 - VERSUS DIMITRIS CARLOS COLEMAN.

00:57 - IT RAISES THE QUESTION OF

00:58 - WHETHER SECTION 9715 OF THE

01:00 - JUDICIARY CODE. I PROVIDED THAT

01:03 - ANY PERSON CONVICTED OF

01:04 - THIRD-DEGREE MURDER WHO

01:05 - QUOTE HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN

01:07 - CONVICTED AT ANY TIME OF MURDER

01:10 - OR INVOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER

01:11 - UNQUOTE SERVING MANDATORY

01:13 - MINIMUM OF LIFE IMPRISONMENT.

01:18 - A STATUTE APPLIES ONLY TO

01:19 - RECIDIVISTS ARE REPEAT

01:20 - OFFENDERS WHO COMMIT ONE

01:22 - HOMICIDE ARE CONVICTED. AND

01:23 - COMMIT ANOTHER OR ON THE OTHER

01:26 - HAND APPLIES EQUALLY TO

01:27 - MULTIPLE OFFENDERS. PEOPLE WHO

01:29 - COMMIT MULTIPLE HOMICIDES

01:30 - BEFORE BEING CONVICTED WHERE

01:32 - MULTIPLE HOMICIDES ON A SINGLE

01:33 - OCCASION. THE FACTS OF THE CASE

01:36 - ARE GRIM. IN

01:37 - 2016. POLICE STOPPED THE

01:39 - DEFENDANT COLEMAN AT A GAS

01:41 - STATION IN ALLEGHENY COUNTY.

01:42 - WE DISCOVERED THAT THERE WAS AN

01:44 - OUTSTANDING WARRANT TO ARREST

01:45 - HIM. AS THEY ATTEMPTED TO

01:47 - EXECUTE THE WARRANT. COLEMAN

01:48 - FLED IN A SHOOTING HIGH SPEED.

01:51 - POLICE CHASE THAT ENDED WHEN

01:52 - COLEMAN STRUCK A VEHICLE,

01:53 - KILLING THE 3 PASSENGERS WITH

01:55 - THEM. BECAUSE COLEMAN'S

01:57 - CONDUCT WAS SO RECKLESS AS TO

01:59 - BE THE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENT.

02:00 - I INTEND TO KILL WAS CHARGED

02:02 - WITH AND CONVICTED OF 3 COUNTS

02:04 - OF THIRD-DEGREE MURDER. A

02:06 - COMMON SENTENCING. PROSECUTORS

02:08 - INVOKE SECTION 9715. IT'S NOT

02:11 - THE IMPOSITION OF A SENSE OF

02:12 - LIFE IMPRISONMENT FOR THE

02:14 - SECOND AND 3RD COUNT. THE COURT

02:16 - OF COMMON PLEAS REFUSED TO

02:18 - APPLY THE MANDATORY MINIMUM.

02:19 - THE REASON THAT IT APPLIED ONLY

02:21 - TO RECIDIVISTS NEVERTHELESS THE

02:23 - COURT SUMMONS COLEMAN TO A TERM

02:24 - OF 70 240 YEARS IMPRISONMENT.

02:28 - THE PROSECUTION APPEALED TO THE

02:29 - SUPERIOR COURT ARGUING THAT

02:31 - SUPERIOR COURT HAD ALREADY

02:32 - AGREE WITH THEIR

02:33 - INTERPRETATION. IN A CASE

02:34 - CALLED COMMONWEALTH

02:35 - VERSUS MORRIS AND SUPERIOR

02:37 - COURT REVERSED A LOWER COURT'S

02:38 - DETERMINATION ON THAT BASIS.

02:40 - ALBEIT WITH ONE JUDGE OFFERING

02:42 - A CONCURRING OPINION

02:43 - EXPRESSING HIS VIEW THAT MORRIS

02:44 - WAS BINDING BUT WRONGLY

02:46 - DECIDED.

02:47 - COLEMAN SAW A FURTHER APPEAL

02:49 - BEFORE THE SUPREME COURT TO

02:50 - ADDRESS WHETHER THE COURT OF

02:51 - COMMON PLEAS INTERPRETATION OF

02:53 - SECTION 9715 WHERE THE SUPERIOR

02:55 - COURT'S INTERPRETATION OF

02:56 - MORRIS WAS THE CORRECT ONE.

02:58 - AND SUPREME COURT GRANTED

02:59 - REVIEW. ON APPEAL. COLEMAN

03:01 - ARGUES THAT THE COURT OF COMMON

03:02 - PLEAS CORRECTLY INTERPRET THE

03:04 - STATUTE AND PROSECUTORS ARGUE

03:06 - THE SUPERIOR COURT MORRIS GOT

03:07 - IT RIGHT. LET'S WATCH THE ORAL

03:09 - ARGUMENT AND COMMONWEALTH

03:10 - VERSUS CALL.

03:13 - YOU KNOW SHE JUST SAYS AND

03:15 - JUSTICES OF THE SUPREME COURT.

03:20 - >>OH YEA YEA YEA. ALL THERE.

03:56 - >>GOOD

03:56 - >>MORNING, EVERYONE.

03:59 - I'M CHIEF JUSTICE MAX BAER I

04:01 - GUESS THERE'S A SIGN THERE THAT

04:02 - SAYS THAT WELCOME TO OUR SPRING

04:05 - OR ARGUMENTS AS SHE WAS IN

04:07 - PITTSBURGH.

04:10 - JUST THIS CAUSE

04:11 - IS FAMOUS JUSTLY FAMOUS FOR

04:14 - INVITING. A GROUP FROM ELLWOOD

04:16 - CITY TO COME. HOWEVER, MY WHAT

04:19 - AM I MOST SENIOR

04:21 - LAW CLERK. SO THE PEOPLE'S HAS

04:23 - ARRANGED FOR THE SHADY SIDE.

04:25 - ACADEMY SPEECH AND DEBATE TEAM

04:28 - AND THEIR COACH MISS MARY CAR

04:29 - LOAN. COULD BE HERE WE REALLY

04:32 - WHY PLEASED TO HAVE YOU HOPE

04:34 - YOU ENJOY YOURSELVES WHEN WE'RE

04:36 - ALL DONE

04:37 - IF YOU WOULD LIKE ONE OF US TO

04:39 - TALK ABOUT WHAT YOU'VE SEEN

04:40 - WOULD BE HAPPY TO DO THAT.

04:46 - YOU I THANK YOU FOR COMMENT.

05:02 - HIGH IPAD BUT THAT'S RIGHT.

05:08 - BRIAN YOU WANT TO CALL THE

05:09 - FIRST CASE.

05:20 - CHASE BEFORE WE

05:22 - THE PROTOCOL IN OUR COURT IS

05:23 - THAT I BRIEFLY EXPLAIN WHAT I

05:26 - THINK THE CASE

05:27 - IS ABOUT MANY CASES, IT'S

05:28 - ACTUALLY HARD TO DECIPHER

05:30 - BECAUSE OF THE NATURE LIMITED

05:31 - GRANTS AND THE LIKE.

05:33 - ICE IS FOR BOTH THE BENEFIT OF

05:34 - THE PEOPLE YOU FOR THE BENEFIT

05:37 - OF PEOPLE WATCHING. AND IT'S

05:39 - ALSO TO MAKE

05:39 - SURE THAT OUR UNDERSTANDING OR

05:43 - AT LEAST MY UNDERSTANDING IS

05:44 - CONSISTENT WITH YOURS WHO WERE

05:46 - ARGUING APPLES AND APPLES NOT

05:48 - APPLES SO FIGHT

05:50 - GET SOMETHING WRONG OR

05:51 - DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU THINK

05:52 - PLEASE FEEL FREE TO TELL ME

05:53 - THAT BEFORE WE GET GOING.

05:55 - SO AS I UNDERSTAND IT. THE

05:58 - ISSUES WHETHER

05:58 - MANDATORY SENTENCING WHICH IS

06:01 - THE MANDATORY SENTENCE

06:02 - PROVISION FOUND AT A 42 PENCIL

06:05 - MAKENS 100 STATUES 9715 A

06:08 - A PRIZE IN THIS CASE, THE

06:09 - PROVISION MANDATES. THE A LIFE

06:13 - SENTENCE IS IMPOSED A POINT ANY

06:14 - CAN PERSON CONVICTED OF A

06:16 - THIRD-DEGREE MURDER WHO HAS

06:18 - PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED AT

06:20 - ANY TIME OF MURDER OR

06:22 - VOLUNTARY MANSLAUGHTER. THE

06:25 - PILOT WHO YOU REPRESENT ARGUES

06:27 - IN THIS CASE WITH 3 PEOPLE WERE

06:28 - KILLED SIMULTANEOUSLY DURING

06:30 - A HIGH-SPEED CHASE IN AN

06:32 - ACCIDENT.

06:34 - THAT THIS SENSING PROVISION

06:36 - SHOULD BE IN APPLICABLE BECAUSE

06:38 - 9715 A SHOULD BE READ BY THIS

06:40 - COURT IS TO CONSIDER THIS

06:41 - PROVISION REQUIRING A PRIOR

06:43 - CONVICTION FROM A SEPARATE

06:45 - CRIMINAL EPISODE RATHER THAN

06:47 - WINDY FOR THE SECOND. RATHER

06:49 - THAN ONE EPISODE. ONE CRASH

06:51 - WITH 3 GUESTS BEFORE THE

06:53 - SENTENCING COURT. SO WE GRANTED

06:54 - TO APPEAL

06:55 - WHO'S AM A 9715 TO SEE IF IT

06:58 - APPLIES TO THIS THIS SCENARIO

06:59 - WHERE

07:00 - 3 PEOPLE WERE INSTANT PAY TO

07:02 - USE LEE KILLED MULTIPLE

07:03 - CONVICTIONS FOR THIRD-DEGREE

07:05 - MURDER WERE ENTERED SECOND

07:06 - SUPPORT AND LIFE SENTENCES WERE

07:08 - IMPOSED SECONDS APART, IT'S

07:09 - SOME OF THE LAST 2 ON TO THE 3.

07:13 - THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. OKAY

07:15 - THAT'S CORRECT WANT TO TELL US

07:17 - WHY ARE

07:18 - >>YEAH NORA CHASE FOR THE

07:20 - APPELLANT ONE.

07:22 - WE'RE NOT ARGUING

07:24 - THAT APPLICATION OF THE STATUTE

07:27 - IS LIMITED TO RESET OF THIS IN

07:30 - THE STRICT SENSE

07:31 - OF SOMEONE WHOSE CRIME

07:33 - REPRESENTS A FAILURE OF THE

07:35 - CORRECTIONAL PROCESS YOU CAN

07:36 - BURY. PETER WITHOUT BEING A

07:39 - RESET OF THE STUFF YOU COMMIT A

07:42 - WEEK APART. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO

07:44 - HAVE BEENS

07:45 - CONVICTED OF THE FIRST ONE

07:46 - BEFORE YOU DO THE SECOND ONE

07:48 - WE'RE NOT ARGUING THAT THE

07:49 - STATUTE SHOULD BE THAT LIMITED

07:51 - BUT THAT IT SHOULD BE

07:53 - IT SHOULD NOT EXTEND TO

07:54 - SOMEBODY WHO IS NEITHER A RESET

07:56 - OF THIS NOR RE PETER.

07:59 - YEAH AS AS NOTED THE FIRST

08:01 - CONVICTION WAS

08:02 - PREVIOUS ONLY BECAUSE IT WAS

08:05 - THE FIRST STEP WAS PRONOUNCED

08:07 - AT

08:07 - THE HEARING. AND IT WAS

08:09 - IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED BY THE

08:11 - SECOND AND 3RD

08:13 - HOMICIDE SENTENCES. AND THIS IS

08:15 - BECAUSE AT SENTENCING.

08:17 - A JUDGE'S GO COUNTY BY COUNTY

08:20 - WHEN

08:21 - WHEN THEY WHEN THEY PRONOUNCE A

08:24 - TERM OF INCARCERATION.

08:26 - I THINK WANT TO DO BEFORE YOU

08:28 - GET INTO YOUR ARGUMENT WITH

08:29 - REGARD TO YOUR STATEMENT ABOUT

08:31 - YOUR BELIEFS ON THE STATUE

08:33 - BEING OR IS IT THE STATUE.

08:35 - >>I WANT TO JUST DRYING BACK TO

08:37 - THAT AREA OF YOUR ARGUMENT.

08:39 - IT CAN YOU. TELL FOR ME IF.

08:44 - SOME OF

08:44 - US MAY BELIEVE THAT IT'S AN

08:46 - UNAMBIGUOUS STATUTE. WE

08:48 - WOULDN'T NECESSARILY BE DRAWN

08:50 - TO THE LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE

08:52 - IN ORDER TO INTERPRET IT SO

08:54 - WITH THAT PROMISE

08:55 - COULD YOU TELL ME WHAT IN

08:58 - THE STATUTE LEAD YOU TO BELIEVE

09:00 - THAT IT'S A QUOTE UNQUOTE

09:01 - RESCINDED

09:02 - THE STATUE.

09:03 - >>WELL AGAIN WE HAVE AND ARGUED

09:04 - THAT WE'VE ARGUED THAT IT

09:05 - SHOULD NOT APPLY TO SOMEBODY

09:07 - WHO IS NOT EVEN A REPEAT OR.

09:11 - >>NOT BELIEVE IT'S A

09:12 - RECIDIVIST STATUE. I'M NOT

09:14 - NECESSARILY A WOULD BE FOR

09:15 - RESET OF THIS ANDREY PETERS BUT

09:18 - NOT PEOPLE WHO

09:20 - SIMULTANEOUS DEATHS.

09:28 - WELL FIRST OF THAT CONSTRUCTION

09:30 - IS NOT CONSISTENT.

09:32 - >>THE ORDINARY EVERYDAY MEANING

09:34 - OF THE WORD PREVIOUS THAT'S

09:36 - USUALLY TAKEN TO REPORT REFER

09:38 - TO SOMETHING OCCURRING ON A

09:40 - PREVIOUS OCCASION, NOT

09:42 - SOMETHING THAT OCCURRED

09:43 - 2 SECONDS EARLIER.

09:45 - >>WE ALSO HAVE WE ALSO HAVE TO

09:47 - LOOK AT SUBSECTION B OF HER.

10:01 - ADDRESSES OF ONE. IT MEANS

10:04 - THERE'S NO ROOM

10:05 - IT ON THE OTHER CONDITION HAS

10:07 - TO BE OR HOW RECENT.

10:15 - WE LOOK AT THIS SUBSECTION B OF

10:17 - THE STATUTE WHICH SAYS THE SON

10:19 - WHO WAS IN COURT

10:21 - PRIOR TO IMPOSING SENTENCE

10:23 - UNDER

10:23 - SUBSECTION A SO HAVE A COMPLETE

10:26 - RECORD OF THE

10:27 - PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS AND COPIES

10:29 - OF ACTUAL BE FURNISHED TO THE

10:31 - OFFENDER. NOW THAT WOULD THAT

10:33 - TO US IMPLIES THAT.

10:38 - THE THEY DID THE DETERMINATION

10:40 - OF THE APPLICABILITY OF

10:41 - SUBSECTION A WOULD BE MADE AT

10:43 - THE COMMENCEMENT OF THE

10:44 - SENTENCING HEARING.

10:46 - >>WHICH I WOULD SAY IS A

10:47 - REASONABLE CONSTRUCTION OF THE

10:49 - WORD PREVIOUSLY

10:51 - I THINK IT COMES DOWN TO PAYING

10:53 - ATTENTION TO COMMON SENSE.

10:55 - AN EVERYDAY USE

10:58 - AND JUST BUT THE DA IS ARGUING

11:00 - IS A RATHER HYPER TECHNICAL

11:02 - CONSTRUCTION. AND I WOULD BE

11:05 - I GUESS WE FELT THAT THE

11:06 - SENTENCING ON THE COUNT SHOULD

11:08 - HAVE BEEN 20 TO 40 LIFE AND

11:10 - LIFE.

11:12 - AND AS YOU KNOW HAS AGAIN

11:14 - BECAUSE YOU KNOW JUDGES DO GO

11:16 - COUNTY BY

11:17 - >>MISTER CHASE I RIGBY.

11:20 - THOUGHT ABOUT YOUR ARGUMENT AND

11:22 - ULTIMATELY WAS INCLINED TO

11:25 - REJECT IT.

11:26 - >>BECAUSE IT SEEMED TO ME.

11:28 - >>WITH THAT IT COUNTS FOR YOU

11:32 - ARE WE PEAK WORRY, WE SEE THIS.

11:39 - FAILED TO ACCOUNT FOR OR

11:41 - CONFLICT WITH THE DISTRICT

11:43 - ATTORNEY TWEETING OF THIS.

11:47 - >>I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT

11:48 - LEGISLATIVE INTENSE HERE.

11:50 - HERE WE HAVE A DISPARITY IN

11:52 - SIGHT AND THAT SOMEBODY WHO IS

11:53 - NOT A REPEAT OR IS BEING

11:55 - TREATED AS RON. AND I WOULD I

11:58 - THINK THERE'S A VEHICLE

11:59 - PROTECTION ISSUE WITH THAT AND

12:01 - THE CONSTRUCTION OF A STATUE

12:03 - THAT IS MOST CONSISTENT WITH

12:04 - LIFE AND LIBERTY IS

12:06 - CONSTITUTIONALLY REQUIRED.

12:08 - >>I DON'T THINK WE WANT TO GET

12:10 - INTO THE 14TH AMENDMENT ON THE

12:11 - CASE THAT I THINK YOU'RE GOING

12:13 - PRETTY FAR.

12:14 - >>IN TERMS OF LEGISLATIVE

12:15 - INTENT WE ARE BUT WHAT ABOUT

12:17 - LEGISLATIVE INTENT. WHY SHOULD

12:19 - WE NOT BE IN THE STATUTE IS

12:21 - WRITTEN IS THAT POLICY IN THE

12:22 - INTENT OF THE

12:23 - GENERAL FAMILY.

12:24 - >>IS TO ENHANCE ANY INCIDENT IN

12:26 - WHICH THERE'S MORE THAN

12:27 - ONE DEATH. AND TAKING INTO

12:28 - CONSIDERATION SUBSECTION B

12:30 - WHICH REQUIRES PROOF OF THAT

12:32 - PRIOR. OUR PREVIOUS CONVICTION

12:35 - AS FOR THOSE TYPES OF MATTERS

12:37 - AS OUTLINED IN

12:38 - OUR JURISPRUDENCE WHY SHOULD WE

12:40 - NOT JUST INTERPRET IT THAT WAY.

12:43 - >>I WOULD SIT

12:43 - WELL FIRST OF ALL THE

12:44 - PROVISION FOR GIVING THE

12:46 - OFFENDER COPIES OF HIS PRIOR

12:48 - CONVICTIONS COVERED THAT IN THE

12:50 - SCENARIO IN WHICH

12:51 - HYPOTHETICALLY.

12:52 - >>THE PERSON WAS CONVICTED IN

12:54 - NEW YORK YOU NEED TO BRING

12:55 - PROOF ALL THE MURDER OF A

12:57 - HOMICIDE IN NEW YORK IN A

12:58 - PENNSYLVANIA COURTROOM. NOT IF

13:00 - THIS SINGULAR INCIDENT RESULTED

13:02 - IN 3 SIMULTANEOUS THAT WELL YOU

13:05 - GET TO DICTATE. DO YOU DISAGREE

13:07 - WITH THAT AND IT'S SO RATIONAL

13:08 - LIKE THAT FOR US.

13:09 - >>I WELL I I WOULD DISAGREE

13:11 - WITH THAT LIMITATION

13:14 - BECAUSE SUBSECTION B CONTAINS

13:16 - NO

13:16 - SUCH LIMITATIONS.

13:18 - >>RIGHT THAT ONLY TALKING ABOUT

13:20 - PROOF THAT SENTENCING MEANING

13:21 - COULD THERE BE A PRIOR

13:22 - CONVICTION. PREVIOUS CONVICTION

13:23 - THAT THERE HAS TO BE SOME

13:24 - PROVED TO BE INTRODUCING A

13:25 - PENNSYLVANIA COURTROOM, BUT IT

13:27 - DOESN'T SAY IT IN EVERY CASE

13:29 - IN WHICH IS GOING TO APPLY THE

13:33 - SENTENCING COURT.

13:35 - >>A SHELL HAVE A COMPLETE

13:37 - RECORD AND SO FURNISH A COPY TO

13:39 - THE OFFENDER. IT DOESN'T

13:41 - SAY ARE ONE OF THE

13:42 - CURRENT OUT OF STATE OR ONLY

13:44 - ONE OF THE CURRENT IN A

13:45 - DIFFERENT COUNTY AND THAT WOULD

13:46 - BE SOMEWHAT ABSURD AND WE KNOW

13:47 - STATUTE ARE NOT HURT

13:49 - TO HAVE PROOF OF A

13:50 - SIMULTANEOUS CONVICTION, A

13:52 - CONVICTION IS THE PROOF BUT

13:53 - IT'S RELEVANT TO THE QUESTION

13:55 - OF WHAT THE LEGISLATURE

13:56 - INTENDED AND WHETHER THEY

13:58 - INTENDED THIS TO REACH

13:59 - SIMULTANEOUS

14:01 - I WOULD POINT OUT FOR WHAT'S

14:02 - SIGNIFICANT YOU MAY HAVE

14:04 - WE HAVE NEVER ARGUED THAT

14:06 - CONSECUTIVE SENTENCES WERE

14:07 - INAPPROPRIATE WE'VE JUST

14:09 - CHALLENGE THE ENHANCEMENTS

14:12 - ON THE SECOND

14:13 - 2 COUNTS.

14:14 - >>WHY DO THEY EAT IN TERMS OF

14:17 - LEGISLATIVE INTENT. THIS

14:19 - SECTION THAT WE'RE TALKING

14:20 - ABOUT IS

14:21 - 9715 TITLE, 42. IN 9714 AND I'M

14:26 - SURE YOU'RE WELL AWARE THE

14:27 - TITLE 42. THE LEGISLATURE

14:30 - DRAFTED WHAT WAS CLEARLY.

14:33 - EVERYTHING WHAT I REFERRED TO

14:34 - AS A RESET OF HIS STATUE.

14:37 - IT SAID THAT.

14:39 - ANY PERSON CONVICTED OF A CRIME

14:41 - OF ALLEN'S AT THAT.

14:43 - BYRON SHALL AT THE TIME OF THE

14:45 - COMMISSION AT THE CURRENT

14:46 - DEFENSE. THE PERSON WHO HAS

14:48 - PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED OF A

14:49 - CRIME OF VIOLENCE BE SENT TO A

14:51 - MINIMUM TERM WITH THAT

14:53 - SHOWS CLEARLY GUYS ONE OF THE

14:56 - THINGS WE ALWAYS LOOK AT THE

14:57 - QUESTION IS REALLY CLEARLY THE

14:58 - LEGISLATURE KNOWS HOW TO WRITE

15:00 - EVERY SEAT OF THE STATUTE.

15:02 - AND IN THE SECTION BEFORE

15:04 - THIS SECTION. IN THIS SECTION.

15:07 - THEY DIDN'T PARENT, THOSE

15:08 - WORKS.

15:11 - >>I DON'T KNOW WHERE THESE 2 SO

15:13 - SUB-SECTORS WRITTEN THAT THE

15:14 - SAME TIME I DON'T KNOW THAT

15:15 - I DIDN'T I MAKE THEM AT YOUR

15:17 - DRIVE TO LOOK IT UP AND TELL ME

15:19 - THAT THEY WEREN'T.

15:21 - IF I MIGHT I.

15:23 - >>AND IN YOUR CASE WHERE THEY

15:24 - WERE SIMULTANEOUS. YEAH, YEAH,

15:27 - NOT THE LAST. THE CONVICTIONS

15:30 - WERE THEORY ITEM

15:31 - SO THAT THERE WAS INDEED A

15:34 - PREVIOUS CONVICTION PRIOR TO

15:36 - THE SECOND CONVICTION.

15:38 - >>WE LITERALLY YES, IT CAN BE

15:41 - ANY OTHER WAY BEHIND BUT THEY

15:42 - FEEL HOW DO WE IGNORE THAT

15:44 - BECAUSE I MEAN THE STATUTE

15:45 - MAKES CLEAR HE USES THE PHRASE

15:47 - PREVIOUSLY AND AT ANY TIME WHAT

15:50 - I UNDERSTAND YOUR ARGUMENT THAT

15:51 - YOU'RE NOT ARGUING. THIS IS A

15:53 - RESET OF THE STATUTE BUT

15:55 - ON THE OTHER HAND WHEN YOU

15:59 - THE CONVICTIONS

16:00 - THAT ARE GIVING SIRI ITEM

16:02 - YOU'RE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE A

16:04 - PREVIOUS CONVICTION.

16:05 - >>WELL THAT'S WELL THAT'S

16:07 - THAT'S THAT'S JUST

16:08 - THE PROBLEM BECAUSE LIGHT IS

16:10 - ARE ALWAYS SYRIA. BUT WHY IS

16:12 - THAT A PROBLEM ISN'T THAT

16:13 - PRECISELY WHAT THE LEGISLATURE

16:15 - WITH THE CAMPAIGN TO CAPTURE

16:16 - WHEN THE YOUTH THE PHRASE AT

16:18 - ANY TIME.

16:19 - >>NO I

16:20 - DON'T WORRY AND THAT THE

16:21 - LEGISLATE THE LEGISLATOR

16:23 - CONTEMPLATED THE RESULT THAT

16:25 - THE SUPERIOR REACHED IN

16:27 - THIS CASE.

16:28 - >>YOU'RE LOOKING FOR AN

16:29 - EXCEPTION ONLY FOR.

16:33 - SIMULTANEOUS GET.

16:35 - >>I WOULD SAY YES.

16:41 - THERE'S SOME LOGIC TO

16:43 - ARGUMENT BUT I'M HAVING SOME

16:45 - DIFFICULTY IS I THINK MY

16:47 - COLLEAGUES ARE IN FINDING A

16:49 - BASIS FOR THAT LOGIC IN THIS

16:50 - STATUTORY LANGUAGE SO IF YOU

16:52 - COULD GIVE IT ONE MORE TRY AT

16:54 - APPRECIATE IT I WOULD

16:55 - SAY THAT SUBSECTION B WHICH

16:58 - APPLIES TO EVERY SINGLE CASE IN

17:01 - WHICH THE ENHANCEMENT TO

17:05 - >>MAKES CLEAR THAT WHAT THE

17:06 - LEGISLATURE HAD IN MIND WAS.

17:10 - GIVE THE OFFENDER

17:12 - COPIES OF HIS PRIOR TO PEER

17:13 - INTENDING TO SENTENCE HIM UNDER

17:15 - SUBSECTION 8 AND IF YOU CAN'T

17:17 - DO THAT BECAUSE IT HAPPENED A

17:20 - SPLIT SECOND EARLIER.

17:22 - THEN THEN SHOULD NOT APPLY AND

17:26 - IS THAT YOUR STRONGEST

17:27 - ARGUMENT.

17:28 - I LEAVE THAT TO THE COURT TO

17:29 - DECIDE WHAT MY STRONG ARGUMENT

17:31 - IS IS THAT YOUR ONLY ARGUMENT.

17:34 - NO IT'S NOT IT'S NOT OUR ONLY

17:36 - ARGUMENT.

17:38 - THANK YOU OKAY, I DOWN THE LIST

17:40 - FOR GRANTED ANYMORE QUESTIONS.

17:42 - I JUST WANT TO QUESTION YOU

17:45 - JUST SAID. MAKES CLEAR

17:48 - REFERENCE TO THE STATUTORY

17:50 - LANGUAGE ARE YOU CONTENDING

17:51 - THAT THE STATUTORY LANGUAGE IS

17:52 - UNAMBIGUOUS. I'M

17:57 - I'M SAYING THAT THE LANGUAGE IN

17:58 - SUBSECTION B IS UNAMBIGUOUS AND

18:01 - THAT THE LANGUAGE IN SUBSECTION

18:02 - 8 HAS TO BE THAT'S THE LANGUAGE

18:05 - IN SUBSECTION B HAS TO BE

18:07 - FACTORED INTO THE CONSTRUCTION

18:09 - OF

18:09 - SUBSECTION 8 OKAY, SO YOU'RE

18:11 - NOT ARGUING THAT WE NEED TO

18:12 - RESORT STATUTORY CONSTRUCTION

18:14 - WE CAN RESOLVE IT PURELY ON THE

18:15 - CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS LANGUAGE

18:17 - OF

18:17 - THE STATUTE.

18:17 - >>WE DON'T LOOK AT THE ROLE AND

18:19 - THE WE DON'T HAVE TO LOOK TOO I

18:22 - INTO IT YES, WHAT WOULD ONLY

18:23 - COME INTO PLAY IF IT'S

18:24 - AMBIGUOUS A TRUE.

18:26 - >>TRUE I THINK THERE IS AS A

18:28 - PRACTICAL MATTER. THERE IS SOME

18:30 - INTERVIEW AND AMBIGUITY OF THE

18:32 - STATUTE. IT DEPENDS ON WHETHER

18:34 - YOU GIVE MEANING CONSISTENT

18:38 - WITH ITS EVERYDAY USE IT.

18:41 - AND THE USAGE HERE IS REALLY

18:42 - NOT THE WAY PEOPLE ORDINARILY

18:44 - USED THE WORD PREVIOUSLY.

18:50 - THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR.

19:00 - WHERE MISTER VERY MUCH YOU KNOW

19:01 - IS THAT CORRECT.

19:03 - >>DANIEL VER NACIDO YOUR IDEA

19:04 - APOLOGIZED TO IT

19:06 - WHAT ARE ITS TOP LAST NIGHT THE

19:07 - SYLLABLE THIS IS A

19:10 - WRONG STILL. YES, MAY PLEASE

19:13 - THE COURT DAY OVER NACHO ON

19:14 - BEHALF OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF

19:15 - PENNSYLVANIA. FROM THE

19:16 - ALLEGHENY COUNTY DISTRICT

19:17 - ATTORNEY'S OFFICE. YOUR

19:20 - HONORS THE.

19:22 - >>TEXT OF THE STATUTE IT'S A

19:26 - NARROW AND STRAIGHTFORWARD

19:27 - ISSUE OF OF.

19:29 - STATUTORY INTERPRETATION THIS

19:31 - THAT THE TEXT OF THE STATUTE IS

19:33 - THE BEGINNING MIDDLE AND END OF

19:34 - THE COMMONWEALTH'S ARGUMENT

19:35 - BASICALLY.

19:37 - THE LANGUAGE IS YOU KNOW

19:38 - PREVIOUSLY BEEN CONVICTED AT

19:40 - ANY TIME TO BE DETERMINED AT

19:42 - SENTENCING. THAT CLEAR

19:44 - TO YOU. IT IS CLEAR TO ME, YES,

19:47 - YOUR HONOR.

19:50 - AN AMBIGUOUS THAT

19:51 - THE STATUTE MANDATE TO SORT OF

19:53 - MECHANICAL I BELIEVE IT'S

19:55 - THAT'S

19:55 - THE WORD IN EITHER MORRIS OR

19:57 - THOMPSON, I FORGET WHICH

19:58 - SUPERIOR COURT CASE AND IT'S A

20:00 - MECHANICAL APPROACH TO

20:01 - SENTENCING ALMOST OUT IN THAT

20:03 - REGARD THEN. CAN YOU TELL

20:06 - US ANOTHER.

20:07 - >>FOR INSTANCE IN WHICH

20:10 - PREVIOUSLY MEANS

20:12 - SIMULTANEOUSLY.

20:15 - >>WELL I THINK THE.

20:21 - THE CASE LAW THOMPSON CASE FROM

20:23 - THE SUPERIOR COURT IS THE

20:25 - CLOSEST SORT OF.

20:29 - FACTUAL SCENARIO WE

20:30 - HAVE HERE WHERE WE HAVE A

20:32 - SINGLE INDIVIDUAL ACT IT IS

20:34 - UNDER THE SAME STATUTE ARE YOU

20:36 - ASKING FOR A DIFFERENT STATUTE

20:37 - UP.

20:38 - >>IS THE SEARCH TO

20:39 - MAINTAIN THAT.

20:41 - >>FROM THE HAPPENSTANCE THAT

20:43 - SECONDS APART IN THE SAME

20:45 - INDIVISIBLE PROCEEDING.

20:48 - CONVICTIONS ARE EXCITED ON

20:49 - SEPARATE COUNTS. THAT

20:51 - YOU HAVE ANYTHING BUT SOME UP

20:53 - TO ME.

20:54 - >>I DON'T THINK SO YOUR HONOR I

20:56 - THINK THAT.

20:59 - I THINK THE KEY DISTINCTION TO

21:01 - THAT POINT IS WHETHER THE

21:02 - STATUTE IS A RECIDIVIST STATUTE

21:04 - OR NOT IF IT'S A

21:06 - RECIDIVIST STATUTE. IT'S ABSURD

21:08 - TO YOU KNOW HAVE THE MANDATORY

21:11 - IS. INCREASED IN THE SAME

21:13 - SENTENCING PROCEEDING. BUT IF

21:14 - IT'S NOT AND IF IT'S NOT A

21:16 - RESET OF HIS STATUTE THEN IT'S

21:17 - JUST SORT OF

21:19 - WE'VE GOT MULTIPLE MURDERS IN

21:21 - THE SAME THING FOR YOU TO GIVE

21:22 - THE.

21:23 - >>I'M SORRY GOING TO DROP THE

21:24 - BALL KEEP EMPLOYMENT. ARMY.

21:27 - I TAKE YOUR ANSWER I UNDERSTAND

21:29 - YOUR POSITION. IF IF YOU ARE

21:32 - CORRECT.

21:33 - THEN HOW CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO US

21:36 - SUBSECTION B.

21:38 - >>IN OTHER WORDS IF IF THIS IS

21:40 - NOT A RISK THAT HAVE THE

21:41 - STATUE. AND IF IT.

21:45 - AND IF IT INCLUDES.

21:50 - CONVICTIONS RECITING THAT THE

21:51 - SAME. VERDICT FOR AN

21:53 - ANNOUNCEMENT. THEN

21:56 - WHAT'S THAT WHAT IS THE

21:58 - MEANING.

22:01 - THE LANGUAGE IN

22:01 - SUBSECTION B PROVIDING THAT THE

22:04 - COURT SHOULD HAVE A COMPLETE

22:06 - RECORD OF THESE PREVIOUS

22:07 - CONVICTIONS AND.

22:10 - >>ALLOWING FOR.

22:15 - THE FINDING.

22:16 - >>ABOUT PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS

22:19 - THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN VACATED

22:21 - AND THAT SORT OF THING ARE THE

22:22 - SCENARIOS.

22:23 - IT SPECIFICALLY RELATE TO THE

22:26 - KIND OF PERCENT OF THE

22:27 - CIRCUMSTANCES.

22:30 - APPELLATE IS REFERRED TO.

22:32 - WE ARE

22:33 - I THINK.

22:33 - >>THAT THE STATUTE IS BROADER

22:36 - THAN JUST THE SITUATION WE HAVE

22:38 - HERE THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU

22:39 - QUOTED WOULD APPLY TO.

22:43 - RECIDIVIST CASES THIS STATUTE

22:45 - REQUIRES

22:46 - 2 RECIDIVISTS.

22:47 - >>IT WILL PAY TO FLY OR

22:48 - SKIPPING IT APPLIES TO SERVICE

22:50 - IT APPLIES TO REPEATERS

22:51 - AND AS WE CAN TIME IT APPLIES

22:53 - TO THE LANGUAGE THAT YOU QUOTE

22:56 - IS BROADER THAN WHAT HAPPENED

22:58 - IN THIS CASE.

23:01 - IT'S JUST IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S

23:02 - LIMITED TO CIRCUMSTANCES.

23:06 - IT DOESN'T MEAN IT'S LIMITED TO

23:07 - RESET OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES IT'S

23:09 - HOW I WOULD INTERPRET THAT THAT

23:10 - THAT LANGUAGE.

23:12 - >>THE CASE SEEMS TO ME COMES

23:15 - DOWN TO WHETHER OR NOT

23:17 - 17 9715 NAYS AMBIGUOUS

23:21 - OR NOT IT'S AN BIG US.

23:24 - THEN AS JUSTICE

23:26 - ROBERTS TONIGHT AND SAID YOU

23:27 - LOOK TO RULES OF STATUTORY

23:28 - CONSTRUCTION YOU GET THE RULING

23:30 - IT OUT AND YOU LOSE. IF

23:32 - IT'S AN AMBIGUOUS WITH THIS

23:35 - MONDAY WAS ARGUING THE OTHER

23:36 - SIDE. THEN IT IS WHAT IT IS AND

23:39 - YOU PROBABLY PREVAIL IF YOU

23:41 - READ THE SECTION WITHOUT THE

23:42 - WORLD WORD, PREVIOUSLY DOES

23:45 - IT MAKE GET TO WHERE YOU WANT

23:46 - TO BE PRETTY CONCLUSIVELY.

23:49 - I COULD REPEAT IF

23:50 - YOU WANT. PRESIDENT VIKTOR

23:52 - MURDER 3RD DEGREE THE

23:53 - COMMONWEALTH WHO HAS BEEN

23:54 - CONVICTED IN KIND OF MURDER OR

23:56 - AND SLIDERS WHO THE STATUE IS

23:58 - APPLICABLE TO I TOOK AWAY

24:00 - PREVIOUSLY OUT. AND THAT'S

24:02 - CLEAR.

24:04 - I THINK IT IS CLEAR WITHOUT THE

24:06 - WORD I THINK IT'S CLEAR WITH

24:07 - THE WORD TOO.

24:08 - >>WHAT WHAT I MEAN THE

24:10 - LEGISLATURE IS NOT IN THE

24:11 - HABIT, MAYBE THEY ARE OF

24:12 - PUTTING WORDS IN

24:13 - A NECESSARILY. SO WHY'S

24:15 - PREVIOUSLY THERE HOW DOES THAT

24:17 - HANSE THE MEANING OF THE

24:18 - STATUTE.

24:19 - WHAT IS IT ONLY BE GREAT IT

24:21 - WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE.

24:23 - I DON'T THINK IT WOULD BE

24:24 - GREAT, BUT I THINK YOUR HONOR

24:25 - THAT.

24:30 - ENSURE AS I BELIEVE AMICUS

24:32 - ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO.

24:35 - DISTANCE NO, YOU KNOW,

24:38 - CONVICTION IT'S TOO REMOTE AND

24:39 - TO MAKE CLEAR THERE'S NO

24:40 - CONNECTIONS TO REMOTE AT 4.

24:42 - 2 RECENT I WANT TO BE

24:44 - DOGMATIC SO VAST QUESTION

24:46 - THOUGH, BUT BUT AND MAYBE IT'S

24:48 - JUST A REITERATION OF THE SAME

24:49 - QUESTION.

24:53 - >>SIMULTANEOUS.

24:55 - THE SIMULTANEOUS DEATHS ARE

24:57 - APPLICABLE.

24:58 - THEN WHAT IN THE WORLD WITH

25:00 - PREVIOUS MEETING THERE,

25:01 - MAYBE YOU CAN ANSWER THEM MAYBE

25:03 - THAT'S OUR OBLIGATION IS AS A

25:05 - COURT OF LAST RESORT BUT IF

25:07 - YOU COULD TELL ME WHY THE WORDS

25:09 - THERE WHY THE DRAFT OR STOP A

25:12 - WORD

25:13 - THAT MEANS PRYOR AND WELCOME

25:15 - I'M USING THE SAME WORD TO

25:16 - DEFINE IT. WILL IT LEAD TO AN

25:19 - EARLIER IN TIME. WHY THEY PUT

25:21 - THAT WORD THERE WOULD HELP HELP

25:23 - ME TRY TO FIGURE THIS OUT SURE

25:24 - YOUR HONOR.

25:26 - >>AS I READ THE STATUTE, IT'S

25:28 - JUST IT MEANS PREVIOUS TO

25:29 - SENTENCING THE WORD PREVIOUS

25:31 - REFERS TO BE LOOKED BACK POINT

25:33 - WHICH IS THE SENTENCING.

25:35 - >>4 THE FIRST.

25:39 - A COUNT OF THIRD-DEGREE MURDER.

25:42 - SO

25:42 - ARE YOU SHARE WITH US THAT IT'S

25:44 - A PROCEDURAL MANEUVER. THE PART

25:45 - OF THE STATUTE WHICH TALK ABOUT

25:47 - THE INTRODUCTION OF NECESSARY

25:50 - TO ENHANCE THE STATUTE WITH

25:52 - THAT.

25:52 - >>I PATHETICALLY AN OUT OF

25:53 - STATE CONVICTIONS SUCH AS MARS

25:55 - FOR IT WHAT ABOUT NATURE AND

25:56 - NOW.

26:00 - >>I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY

26:01 - CATEGORIZE SUBSECTION B IS

26:03 - PROCEDURAL. I DO THINK IT NEEDS

26:04 - TO BE READ I KNOW BECAUSE MADE

26:05 - THAT POINT IN HIS BUT OUR

26:08 - POSITION WOULD BE WE CAN.

26:12 - I DON'T KNOW THAT IT IS

26:13 - PROCEDURAL BUT EVEN IF IT IS

26:14 - PROCEDURAL. YOU KNOW

26:15 - SUBSECTIONS ARE A PART OF THE

26:17 - STATUTE WE NEED WHICH NEEDS TO

26:18 - BE LOOKED AT HOLISTICALLY.

26:21 - >>I THINK THAT THE TEMPTATION

26:23 - AND THIS KIND OF ANALYSIS IS

26:25 - AND I THINK YOU'RE GONE INTO IT

26:26 - A LITTLE

26:26 - BIT HIGH. JUST CHIEF JUSTICE

26:29 - PAIR'S PREVIOUS QUESTION.

26:31 - IT'S IT'S EASY TO CONFLATE THAT

26:34 - CRIME WITH THE

26:36 - CONVICTION. I MEAN THE CRIMES

26:38 - WERE

26:40 - SIMULTANEOUS BUT THE

26:42 - CONVICTIONS AS A MATTER OF FACT

26:44 - YOU KNOW ON PAPER OR NOT

26:48 - SIMULTANEOUS

26:49 - THEY WERE. MINUTES OR SECONDS

26:51 - APART, BUT YOU CAN IDENTIFY THE

26:53 - PREVIOUS CONVICTION. WE DON'T

26:55 - NEED TO GO BACK TO WHETHER

26:56 - THE CRIME WAS PREVIOUS, IT'S

26:59 - ALL ABOUT THE CONVICTION UNDER

27:00 - THE STATUTE IS

27:01 - THAT CORRECT.

27:02 - >>THAT'S CORRECT EARLY THAT'S

27:03 - IF THAT'S CORRECT COUNCIL THEN

27:04 - WHY WOULD THE LEGISLATURE HAVE

27:06 - LANGUAGE CREATING THIS.

27:10 - PROCESS THAT WOULD THEN BE I

27:12 - GUESS IT WOULD BE FARCICAL

27:14 - WHERE A COMPLETE RECORD OF THE

27:17 - PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS WOULD

27:18 - BE SUBMITTED AND THEN THE COURT

27:20 - WOULD HAVE TO BE DETERMINED BY

27:22 - A PREPONDERANCE

27:23 - OF EVIDENCE WHETHER THE

27:25 - PREVIOUS CONVICTIONS OCCURRED.

27:27 - AND WHETHER THE SECTION AS

27:29 - APPLICABLE. THE COURT JUST THE

27:31 - JURY JUST CAME IN. VERDICT

27:35 - OF GUILT.

27:36 - >>BOOM BOOM BOOM.

27:38 - WHAT'S THE POINT OF THOSE

27:40 - PROVISIONS THEM.

27:46 - >>SO I THINK THAT GOES YOUR

27:47 - HONOR TO THE POINT THAT THE

27:49 - STATUTE ENCOMPASSES A BROADER

27:51 - NOT JUST SIMULTANEOUS INCLUDE

27:54 - SIMULTANEOUS CONVICTION FENCES

27:57 - AND DEATHS. BUT IT DOESN'T

28:00 - JUST.

28:02 - OR DOESN'T JUST PERTAIN TO

28:04 - SIMULTANEOUS OFFENSE AND DEATHS

28:06 - IT ENCOMPASSES A BROADER SET OF

28:07 - CIRCUMSTANCES AND THAT

28:08 - LANGUAGE.

28:10 - WOULD BE A PORTABLE 2.

28:14 - OTHER CASES. I AGREE WITH YOU I

28:16 - THINK IT'S WELL TAKEN THAT IN

28:18 - THIS PARTICULAR IN THIS KIND OF

28:20 - CASE THAT LANGUAGE IS NOT

28:21 - NECESSARY, BUT THIS BUT THIS

28:23 - STATUTE

28:23 - ISN'T ONLY FOCUS ON THIS KIND

28:25 - OF CASE TO INTERPRET THAT THE

28:28 - ALLEGHENY COUNTY COMMON PLEAS.

28:29 - COURT JUDGE CASHMAN MAY HAVE

28:31 - HIT THE NAIL ON THE HEAD WHEN

28:32 - HE SAID.

28:33 - >>WE VIEW THIS ALL AS

28:34 - GRAMMATICAL CHICANERY

28:36 - WITH THAT COUNTY I'M A FOLLOW

28:40 - UP AN EXTRA CLEAN DURING.

28:42 - WHAT THIS.

28:43 - >>THE BIG C.

28:45 - >>TERM I CAN

28:46 - BET THAT.

28:48 - >>SAYING IN A AS YOU GUYS CAN

28:51 - BE.

28:51 - >>WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A FINDING

28:54 - OF GUILT ARE WE

28:55 - TALKING ABOUT. WE GO

28:58 - IN SENTENCING THE FINDING OF

29:00 - GUILT AND SENTENCING

29:02 - OR DO THEY MEAN THE SAME THING

29:04 - IN BOTH A AND B.

29:05 - >>I THINK THEY MEAN THE SAME

29:07 - THING AND A AND I DON'T.

29:10 - >>NOW THAT I WOULD GO WITH TALK

29:12 - ABOUT BE.

29:13 - SO THE EVIDENCE THAT WOULD HAVE

29:15 - TO BE OR THE DOCUMENTATION

29:17 - THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO BE

29:18 - PROVIDED TO THE AND DEFENSE

29:21 - SECTION B IS WHAT THE FINDING

29:23 - OF GUILT.

29:28 - WHAT KIND OF RECORD. THE FACT.

29:30 - >>I GUESS THAT'S WELL TAKING

29:31 - YOUR HONOR BE THE

29:33 - WHAT WOULD HAVE TO GIVEN TO THE

29:35 - DEFENDANT WOULD BE ANY PRIOR

29:37 - CONVICTIONS.

29:39 - PRESUMABLY OUTSIDE THE CASE

29:40 - THAT BAR BECAUSE WE'RE HERE

29:42 - TODAY FOR THIS

29:43 - PARTICULAR SENTENCING. SO THE

29:45 - DEFENDANT WOULD AT LEAST

29:46 - PRESUMABLY BE AWARE OF HIS OWN

29:47 - CONVICTIONS IN THIS PARTICULAR

29:48 - CASE IT HAS.

29:49 - >>BEING THE NOTION, I MEAN GOD

29:51 - BOWS AND

29:51 - I CONCURRED IN HER IN

29:54 - CONFERENCE AND OF COURSE IF THE

29:55 - COURT IN KIMMEL

29:57 - IN 1989 FAYED WHO BECAME KNOWN

30:00 - FOUND GUILTY AND NOT FOUND

30:02 - GUILTY AND SENTENCED. BUT.

30:05 - WE'VE GOT CREWS CAN BE THE

30:07 - REPORT.

30:10 - >>AND AND

30:10 - YOU'RE PRETTY MEAN DIFFERENT

30:12 - THINGS IN SUBSECTION A

30:14 - CONFECTION BE.

30:17 - I JUST DON'T KNOW HOW YOU FACE

30:19 - IN AN AMBIGUOUS STATUTE WE CAN

30:21 - MEAN DIFFERENT THINGS.

30:24 - >>I THINK

30:24 - EVEN IF THE SORT OF DISTINCTION

30:27 - BETWEEN CONVICTION AND

30:28 - CONVICTION IN STATUTE.

30:30 - IN FACT AND CENT OF IT.

30:35 - EVEN IF IT

30:36 - WERE DIFFERENT BETWEEN

30:37 - SUBSECTIONS AND SUBSECTION

30:41 - IT STILL DOESN'T NECESSARILY

30:42 - MAKE IT AN AMBIGUOUS STATUTE,

30:44 - IT JUST THAT.

30:46 - JUST READING IT PREVIOUSLY

30:48 - CONVICTED AT ANY TIME TO BE

30:49 - LOOKED AT SENTENCING.

30:53 - THEY PRESCRIBE THE

30:54 - SENTENCING PROCEDURE WHETHER

30:55 - THERE ARE WITH THE WEATHER.

30:57 - THE WORD MEANS A SLIGHTLY

30:58 - DIFFERENT THING IN SUBSECTION B

30:59 - AT LEAST WITH RESPECT TO THE

31:01 - CONVICTIONS IN THE CASE THAT

31:02 - BAR. I THINK WOULD BE.

31:10 - WHETHER THAT'S RIGHT WE'RE NOT

31:12 - RELEVANT FOR THE ANALYSIS OF

31:14 - WHETHER THIS AMBIGUOUS STATUTE.

31:17 - WHAT YOU CAN SEE THAT IF WE

31:19 - TAKE AT ANY TIME OF DAY.

31:21 - >>YOU LOSE.

31:24 - WHEN WE LEAVE HERE WITHOUT IT

31:25 - WOULD ACTUALLY BEEN CONVICTED

31:27 - OF THIRD-DEGREE MURDER.

31:31 - >>YOU COULD CONSTRUCT AN

31:32 - ARGUMENT THAT PREVIOUSLY MEANS

31:34 - SECONDS EARLIER, BUT IT WOULD

31:36 - IS SOMEBODY SAID TO BE AN

31:37 - ABSURD RESULT. I THINK THAT IT

31:39 - WAS PRUDENT TO NBC THIS.

31:42 - EVEN TAKING OUT AT ANY TIME

31:43 - THAT A PREVIOUSLY CONVICTED.

31:46 - WE LOOKED AT SENTENCING, I

31:48 - THINK THE ARGUMENT COULD BE

31:49 - MADE I THINK THE THE THE

31:51 - LANGUAGE AT ANY TIME MAKES IT

31:52 - CLEAR, BUT I THINK AN ARGUMENT

31:54 - COULD BE MADE THAT THE STATUTES

31:56 - TO SHOULD STILL BE INTERPRETED

31:57 - THE SAME WAY.

31:58 - >>WELL AND THE ANSWERS AT ANY

32:00 - TIMES IN THERE I I THANK YOU,

32:03 - ANYBODY ELSE. YOUR

32:04 - HONOR THAT ONE FINAL

32:08 - SOMETHING THAT I NEGLECTED TO

32:09 - PUT MY BRIEF BUT ACTUALLY DID

32:10 - LOOK UP IN PREPARING FOR ORAL

32:13 - JUST HAPPENED THINK OF IT.

32:14 - >>SECTIONS 9715 IN 1914 WERE

32:17 - PASSED IN THE SAME BUILT.

32:19 - IT WAS AT 54 TO 1982.

32:22 - THAT WOULD GIVE US INSIGHT INTO

32:24 - WHAT THE LEGISLATURE INTENDED.

32:25 - I CERTAINLY THINK SO YEAH ALL

32:26 - RIGHT, THANK YOU. THANK YOU

32:27 - VERY MUCH.

32:34 - >>THE SECOND CASE BEING ARGUED

32:35 - TODAY IS POWER FOR SAYS COULD

32:37 - DOLLY A CASE OF ALLEGED MEDICAL

32:39 - NEGLIGENCE OR MEDICAL

32:40 - MALPRACTICE. MISTER COWARD DIED

32:43 - WHILE JOGGING. AT THE YOUNG AGE

32:46 - OF 48. HE HAD SOME PREVIOUS

32:48 - SYMPTOMS OF HEART PROBLEMS

32:50 - AND HE'D BEEN SEEN BY THE

32:51 - DEFENDANT DOCTOR COULD ALI

32:53 - A CARDIOLOGIST WHEN HE WAS

32:56 - DIAGNOSED WITH ANXIETY RATHER

32:58 - THAN HEART DISEASE. HE DIED

33:00 - ABOUT A

33:00 - MONTH LATER. AN AUTOPSY

33:03 - REVEALED HE SUFFERED FROM

33:04 - SEVERE CORONARY ARTERY DISEASE

33:07 - AND HAD DIED FROM A HEART

33:08 - ATTACK.

33:10 - MISTER COWERS WIFE FILED SUIT

33:12 - AGAINST DOCTOR COULD ALI

33:13 - CLAIMING HE HAD NOT RENDERED

33:14 - APPROPRIATE MEDICAL CARE TO

33:16 - MISTER COWER WHEN MISTER CAO OR

33:18 - HAD SEEN HIM.

33:20 - AFTER A WEEKLONG TRIAL A LEHIGH

33:22 - COUNTY JURY FOUND THE DOCTOR

33:24 - COULD ALI HAD NEGLIGENTLY

33:26 - CAUSED MISTER COWERS DEATH.

33:29 - WHEN SOMEONE DIES AS THE RESULT

33:32 - OF ANOTHER PERSON'S NEGLIGENCE

33:33 - PENNSYLVANIA LIKE MOST STATES

33:35 - PERMITS TO SEPARATE CAUSES OF

33:38 - ACTION TO BE MAINTAINED.

33:40 - ONE A SURVIVAL ACTION WHICH

33:43 - ESSENTIALLY IS THE DISSIDENTS

33:45 - CLAIM WHICH SURVIVES HIS OR HER

33:47 - DEATH.

33:50 - A WRONGFUL

33:50 - DEATH ACTION WHICH PERMITS

33:53 - CERTAIN SURVIVORS, WE'RE

33:55 - DEPENDENT ON THE DECEIVING AT

33:56 - DEATH TO RECOVER CERTAIN LOSSES

33:59 - THAT THEY HAVE SUSTAINED WHY

34:01 - REASON OF THE DEATH.

34:04 - IN THIS CASE. THE JURY AWARDED

34:05 - MISSES COWER

34:08 - 3 MILLION 833 THOUSAND DOLLARS

34:10 - AND SURVIVAL ACT DAMAGES.

34:12 - AND 2 MILLION 457 THOUSAND

34:15 - DOLLARS IN WRONGFUL DEATH

34:17 - DAMAGES.

34:20 - DOCTOR COULD ALI MOVE THE TRIAL

34:21 - COURT FOR A NEW TRIAL. BUT HIS

34:24 - MOTION WAS DENIED.

34:27 - HE THEN APPEALED TO THE

34:28 - SUPERIOR COURT WHICH REJECTED

34:31 - ALL OF THE REASONS HE HAD CITED

34:33 - IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM FOR A

34:34 - NEW TRIAL EXCEPT ONE.

34:37 - IT FOUND THAT THE TRIAL COURT

34:39 - HAD ERRED IN PERMITTING MISSES

34:41 - COWERS CARDIOLOGY EXPERT TO

34:44 - TESTIFY TO HIS OPINION THAT

34:46 - MISTER COWER HAD SUFFERED

34:48 - CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING

34:50 - BEFORE HIS HEART ATTACK.

34:52 - WE'RE CONSCIOUS PAIN AND

34:53 - SUFFERING WOULD BE ONE OF THE

34:54 - ELEMENTS OF DAMAGE RECOVERABLE

34:57 - IN A SURVIVAL ACTION.

34:59 - THE SUPERIOR COURT FOUND THAT

35:00 - THE

35:01 - CARDIOLOGY EXPERT HAD FAILED TO

35:03 - PROVIDE A MEDICAL EXPLANATION

35:06 - OR A SCIENTIFIC BASIS FOR HIS

35:09 - OPINION. AND THAT WITHOUT SUCH

35:11 - A BASIS.

35:12 - HIS PERSONAL BELIEF SHOULD NOT

35:14 - HAVE BEEN ADMITTED INTO

35:15 - EVIDENCE.

35:17 - THE SUPERIOR COURT CONCLUDED

35:19 - THAT THE TESTIMONY COULD HAVE

35:20 - BEEN PREJUDICIAL TO DOCTOR

35:22 - COULD ALI AND COULD HAVE

35:24 - INFLUENCED THE SURVIVAL ACTION

35:26 - RECOVERY. THAT WAS RENDERED BY

35:28 - THE JURY.

35:30 - THE SUPERIOR COURT AFFIRMED THE

35:32 - TRIAL COURT'S CONCLUSION THAT

35:34 - THE JURY HAD A PROPER BASIS FOR

35:37 - DETERMINING ITS. WE AWARD OF

35:40 - DAMAGES UNDER THE WRONGFUL

35:42 - DEATH ACT AND THAT DOCTOR COULD

35:44 - ALI WAS LIABLE FOR CAUSING THE

35:46 - STIR COWERS DEATH.

35:47 - WHAT IF THEY CAN ADD THE JURY'S

35:49 - AWARD OF DAMAGES IN THE

35:51 - SURVIVAL ACTION. AND AWARDED A

35:53 - NEW TRIAL.

35:55 - LIMITED TO THE DAMAGE IS

35:57 - RECOVERABLE UNDER THE SURVIVAL

35:58 - ACT.

36:00 - THE SUPREME COURT GRANTED

36:01 - MISSES COWARDS PETITION FOR

36:03 - ALLOWANCE OF APPEAL PAVING THE

36:05 - WAY FOR THE ARGUMENTS WILL HEAR

36:07 - IN A MOMENT.

36:09 - BECAUSE DOCTOR COULD ALI DID

36:11 - NOT REQUEST AND ITEMIZE

36:13 - VERDICT SLEPT THAT WOULD HAVE

36:15 - REQUIRED THE JURY TO SEPARATELY

36:17 - VALUE. EACH OF THE ELEMENTS OF

36:20 - DAMAGES RECOVERABLE IN A

36:22 - SURVIVAL ACTION. AND

36:24 - DID NOT OBJECT TO THE USE

36:27 - OF THE VERDICT SLIP THAT THE

36:29 - COURT GAVE THE JURY TO COMPLETE

36:31 - DURING ITS DELIBERATIONS.

36:34 - MISSUS COWER CONTENDS DOCTOR

36:36 - COULD ALI

36:36 - IS STOPPED REQUESTING A

36:39 - NEW TRIAL ON THE DAMAGES SHE

36:42 - WAS AWARDED IN THE SURVIVAL

36:43 - ACTION.

36:49 - THIS IS COWER

36:50 - CONTENDS THE DOCTOR COULD ALI

36:52 - CANNOT ESTABLISH WE AMOUNT

36:55 - OF CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING

36:57 - DAMAGES. THE JURY AWARDED.

36:59 - AND THEREFORE CAN TO ESTABLISH

37:01 - THE SECOND ELEMENT OF HIS

37:03 - BURDEN OF PROOF ON THIS APPEAL.

37:05 - THAT IS THAT THE TESTIMONY OF

37:07 - MISSES COWERS CARDIOLOGY EXPERT

37:10 - WAS PREJUDICIAL TO DOCTOR

37:12 - COULD ALI AND UNFAIRLY

37:14 - INFLUENCE THE JURY'S

37:15 - DETERMINATION. AS TO THE AMOUNT

37:18 - OF DAMAGES RECOVERABLE AND THE

37:20 - SURVIVAL ACTION.

37:22 - DOCTOR CALI ON THE OTHER HAND

37:23 - CONTENDS THAT THE SUPERIOR

37:25 - COURT GOT IT RIGHT.

37:26 - AND THAT THE TRIAL

37:27 - COURT'S ADMISSION OF MISSES

37:30 - COWERS CARDIOLOGY

37:31 - EXPERT'S TESTIMONY THAT MISTER

37:34 - COWER HAD EXPERIENCED CONSCIOUS

37:36 - PAIN AND SUFFERING. WHILE

37:38 - SUFFERING HIS HEART ATTACK AND

37:39 - BEFORE HIS DEATH

37:41 - WAS PREJUDICIAL AND COULD HAVE

37:43 - CAUSED THE JURY TO AWARD

37:45 - SIGNIFICANT DAMAGES FOR MISTER

37:47 - COWERS PAIN AND SUFFERING.

37:50 - DOCTOR COULD ALI SAYS HE WASN'T

37:52 - REQUIRED TO PROVE WITH

37:53 - MATHEMATICAL CERTAINTY. HOW

37:55 - MUCH THE JURY AWARDED IN

37:57 - SURVIVAL ACT DAMAGES.

37:59 - AND THAT BECAUSE MISSES COWERS

38:01 - CARDIOLOGY EXPERT'S TESTIMONY

38:03 - WAS IMPROPERLY ADMITTED INTO

38:05 - EVIDENCE.

38:07 - AND THERE WAS A SUBSTANTIAL

38:08 - POSSIBILITY. IT MAY HAVE

38:11 - INFLUENCE THE VERDICT IN THE

38:12 - SURVIVAL ACTION. THE SUPERIOR

38:15 - COURT'S JUDGMENT SHOULD BE

38:16 - AFFIRMED. LET'S LISTEN TO THE

38:18 - ARGUMENTS.

38:20 - >>GOOD MORNING TO YOU THE THIS

38:23 - IS AN EXTRAORDINARILY LIMITED.

38:25 - WE ISSUE PREMISE TIPLINE THIS

38:28 - COURT LIMITED GRANT.

38:31 - THE ISSUE IS

38:34 - CLEARLY STATED I BELIEVE FROM

38:35 - HELENS WHO ARE THE PLANK IS

38:37 - BELOW THEY CONTEND THAT POLICE

38:40 - WHO ARE DEFENDANTS BELOW.

38:43 - FAILED TO REQUEST AN ITEMIZED

38:44 - VERDICT SLIP. WE JUST THINK

38:46 - EVERY ELEMENT OF DAMAGES UNDER

38:49 - THE PENNSYLVANIA SAYS

38:50 - SURVIVOR FACT CAN COMMENT

38:52 - LIEFELD GOING TO GET TO THE

38:54 - ALLEGEDLY GENERAL VERDICT

38:55 - SLIPPED PROVIDED A JURY.

38:58 - THE ARGUMENT IS THAT GIVEN THE

39:00 - FAILURE TO SEEK THE ITEMIZED

39:02 - VERDICT SLIP AND TO GET TO THE

39:04 - VERDICT SLIP WAS USED.

39:07 - BLAKE IS PALIN'S CONTEND THAT

39:09 - THE APP POLICE ARE STOPPED FROM

39:11 - SEEKING A NEW TRIAL AND

39:12 - DAMAGES. ON THE BASIS THAT AN

39:14 - EXCESSIVE AMOUNT WAS AWARDED.

39:17 - IN THE SURVIVAL ACTION THROUGH

39:19 - THE GENERAL VERDICT SLIP.

39:23 - IT SEEMS TO BE.

39:25 - AND IT SEEMED TO ME IN

39:26 - PREPARATIONS, SOMEWHAT PAYING

39:28 - JETS WITH OTHER ARGUMENTS BUT

39:29 - THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE BEFORE US

39:31 - AS THE PROCESS WE GET MISTER

39:32 - SENT OFF. CHIEF

39:34 - JUSTICE PAIR MAY PLEASE THE

39:35 - COURT. GOOD MORNING TO DO THIS

39:38 - THEY CANNOT.

39:43 - >>ACCEPT

39:43 - THE VERDICT. WE'RE NEVER

39:45 - FINDING AN EFFECTIVE 35 IN THE

39:47 - MONTH THAT'S CORRECT.

39:52 - >>I THINK ABOUT WHAT I WAS

39:53 - GOING TO SAY TODAY THE LAST

39:54 - TIME I WAS.

39:55 - >>BEFORE THE COURT I

39:57 - QUOTED MY DEARLY DEPARTED

39:59 - PARTNER AND MENTOR BILL CARE

40:00 - CELIBATE SEARCHING MY MEMORY I

40:02 - COULDN'T THINK OF ONE OF HIS

40:03 - APHORISMS FOR THIS CASE, BUT

40:05 - INSTEAD I KEPT COMING BACK TO

40:06 - SOMETHING MY YOUNGER SISTER

40:07 - ALWAYS SAID WHICH WAS QUOTING

40:09 - THE WOODY WOODPECKER CARTOON.

40:11 - IF 40 WOULD HAVE GONE RIGHT TO

40:12 - THE POLICE THIS WOULD HAVE

40:14 - NEVER HAPPENED. AND TO BE VERY

40:17 - SPECIFIC BECAUSE WE'VE TRIED

40:19 - AND MEEK IS HIS STRIDE.

40:21 - 2 TO CHARACTERIZE THIS CASE AS

40:23 - HAVING YOUR CAKE AND EAT IT TOO

40:25 - TRYING TO TAKE 2 BITES AT THE

40:26 - APPLE. BUT AT THE END OF THE

40:28 - DAY WHAT THIS CASE IS ABOUT IS

40:31 - SIMPLY IF

40:32 - YOU KNOW IF YOU HAVE REASON TO

40:34 - BELIEVE THAT THERE'S GOING TO

40:35 - BE AN ISSUE ABOUT SOMETHING

40:38 - WHETHER IT BE

40:39 - DAMAGES OR AS THIS COURT

40:41 - DECIDED IN SHIFLETT

40:43 - LIABILITY AND YOU HAVE THE

40:45 - OPPORTUNITY TO PUT BEFORE THE

40:48 - JURY. A SPECIFIED VERDICT SLIP

40:51 - THAT WOULD

40:52 - CAKE DEVELOP QUESTION

40:54 - COMPLETELY OUT OF THE REALM OF

40:56 - SPECULATION AND PUT IT INTO THE

40:59 - REALM OF CERTAINTY

41:01 - THEN YOUR FAILURE TO DO

41:03 - THAT YOU CAN'T BENEFIT FROM THE

41:06 - UNCERTAINTY OF THAT AND

41:07 - SPECIFICALLY IN

41:09 - THIS CASE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT

41:10 - ONLY THE AWARD FOR THE SURVIVAL

41:13 - ACT WHICH TOTALED

41:17 - 3 MILLION 833 THOUSAND DOLLARS.

41:18 - BUT IT CERTAINLY RAISES THE

41:19 - INFERENCE IN.

41:21 - >>A JUDGE'S MIND ANYWAY LOOKING

41:23 - AT THE YACHT.

41:25 - BRIEFS THAT EITHER THE

41:27 - TRIAL ATTORNEY FOR THE

41:30 - DEFENDANT.

41:34 - NEGLIGENTLY PERHAPS FAILED

41:36 - TO REQUEST ITEMIZED BURDICK

41:38 - SLIPPED OR STRATEGICALLY CHOSE

41:41 - NOT TO FOR SOME.

41:43 - RECENT THAT YOU KNOW I CAN'T

41:44 - SPECULATE WHAT THAT WOULD BE.

41:47 - IS THERE SOME OTHER REASON THAT

41:49 - YOU IDENTIFIED AS TO WHY THIS

41:51 - MIGHT NOT HAVE

41:51 - BEEN THEM. NO I MEAN CERTAINLY

41:54 - ASK MISS WITH I

41:57 - >>AT THE ALL PARTIES AGREED

42:00 - ULTIMATELY TO THE VERDICT SLIP

42:02 - THAT WAS

42:03 - DISTRIBUTED AND THERE WAS

42:04 - NOTHING INAPPROPRIATE ABOUT IT.

42:06 - A CHOICE THAT'S THAT'S FINE

42:07 - CERTAINLY AND THE BURDOCKS LET

42:10 - THAT WAS FILED ON BEHALF OF THE

42:13 - DEFENDANTS.

42:15 - LOOK ALMOST IDENTICAL WITH THE

42:17 - EXCEPTION OF PRONOUNS AND NAMES

42:18 - AND AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE

42:20 - OF THE PARTIES TO THE ONE THAT

42:21 - WAS ULTIMATELY GIVEN TO THE

42:23 - JURY AND SO NOT ONLY WAS THE

42:26 - ONE THAT WAS FILED IN ADVANCE

42:28 - OF THE TRIAL.

42:31 - YOU KNOW FAILED TO INCLUDE ANY

42:33 - SPECIFICATION OF DAMAGES.

42:35 - BUT THE ONE THAT ULTIMATELY

42:38 - WENT TO THE JURY

42:39 - DIDN'T INCLUDE IT WAS JUST 2

42:41 - LINES ONE FOR ALL, BUT THEY'RE

42:43 - NOT EVEN FAILED TO INCLUDE IT

42:44 - DID NOT INCLUDE THAT'S RIGHT.

42:45 - I MEAN I'M NOT I'M NOT I NEED

42:47 - TO ATTRIBUTE

42:47 - ANY ANY ILL ARM AND THERE'S NO

42:52 - REQUIREMENT THAT YOU

42:53 - SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT HAVE A

42:54 - GENERAL VERDICT FORMER AN

42:56 - ITEMIZED VERDICT

42:56 - FOR MONTHS.

42:57 - >>KIND OF UP TO THE REQUEST OF

43:00 - THE ATTORNEYS THE RULINGS OF

43:02 - THE COURT AND

43:05 - YOU KNOW THIS THIS ONE HAPPENED

43:06 - TO NOT BE ITEMIZED IN THAT

43:08 - FASHION CORRECT.

43:10 - >>ARE THEY ITEMIZE FROM THE

43:11 - FASHION.

43:12 - >>IN THIS CASE. I GENERALLY.

43:14 - BUT SOMETIMES YES, SOMETIMES

43:16 - NO, I MEAN IT'S IT REALLY IS IT

43:18 - DEPENDS ON WHETHER A PARTY ASKS

43:20 - OR WE ARE REQUIRED TO BE.

43:22 - WE DON'T KNOW I I I KNOW

43:24 - THAT YOU KNOW THEY'RE NOT

43:25 - REQUIRED TO BE BUDDY, BUT THE

43:27 - ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS

43:28 - THAT GENERALLY THESE AWARDS FOR

43:31 - DAMAGES IN THESE PARTICULAR

43:32 - CAUSES OF ACTIONS ARE SINGLE

43:34 - LUMP SUM. DAMAGES AWARD THAT'S

43:36 - THE GENERAL. PRINCIPLE.

43:39 - WELL I DON'T I DON'T I AGREE

43:41 - THAT THAT'S

43:44 - A MAJORITY OF THE CASES

43:46 - BUT I DON'T AGREE THAT THAT'S

43:47 - THE GENERAL PRINCIPLE NOW YOU

43:49 - WOULD BE MAKING IT NOW NOW IF

43:50 - WE WERE TO RULE IN YOUR FAVOR

43:52 - YOU WOULD BE MAKING A RULE.

43:53 - NO NO I DON'T THINK SO BECAUSE.

43:57 - THE POINT IS NOT ANYTHING THAT

43:58 - REQUIRES SOME COLLEAGUES THAT

43:59 - ARE ON YOUR SIDE WHAT'S THE

44:01 - POINT IS NOT THAT THE TRIAL

44:03 - COURT WOULD BE RECALL WIRED TO

44:05 - DO IT. THE POINT IS THAT.

44:08 - AS THE LAW EXISTS NOW THE

44:10 - DEFENSE WOULD SIMPLY SUBMIT

44:12 - WHATEVER THEY WANT TO SUBMIT

44:13 - PLANTS WOULD SUBMIT WHATEVER

44:15 - THEY WANTED TO SUBMIT

44:16 - AND THEN IF THE TRIAL COURT

44:17 - DECIDED YOU KNOW WHAT I'M NOT

44:18 - GOING TO GET SPECIAL

44:19 - INTERACTIVE TOURS THAT MIGHT BE

44:21 - AIR OR LATER DEPENDING ON WHAT

44:23 - THE VERDICT IS WE'RE TALKING

44:24 - ABOUT WAIVER HERE

44:25 - YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WAVERING

44:26 - YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A STOP YOU

44:27 - DON'T ASK YOU DON'T ASK FOR IT

44:29 - YOU KNEW THAT YOU DON'T ASK FOR

44:30 - AN ITEMIZED DAMAGE EITHER WE'RE

44:31 - ONLY TALKING ABOUT EVERY MAN

44:33 - FOR A DAMAGES TRIAL. IT'S NOT

44:34 - GOING TO BE YOU'RE YOU'RE NOT

44:36 - HAVING LINERS LIKE THAT RIGHT

44:38 - COUNCILS YOU MAY NOT BE TRYING

44:39 - LIABILITY. IT'S A REMAIN FOR

44:41 - DAMAGES THERE'S 2 COMPONENT OF

44:43 - DAMAGES WHEN YOU'RE ACTING LIKE

44:44 - THIS IS GOING TO BE SOME

44:46 - WITH SOME HUGE THING IT'S SET

44:48 - TO REMAIN FOR DAMAGES TRIAL.

44:49 - WELL YOUR HONOR IT'S NOT EVERY

44:50 - MAN FOR DAMAGES TRIAL BECAUSE

44:52 - FIRST OF ALL THE SUPERIOR COURT

44:53 - ONLY REMANDED IT FOR.

44:56 - A SURVIVAL ACT RIGHT TRIAL KNOW

44:59 - WRONGFUL DEATH THAT'S NUMBER

45:00 - ONE NUMBER 2.

45:02 - EVERYBODY INCLUDING THE

45:04 - SUPERIOR COURT AS WELL AS THE

45:07 - APPLE EASE HAVE SAID THAT IN

45:09 - ORDER TO DETERMINE THAT THE

45:12 - VERDICT FOR NON-ECONOMIC

45:14 - DAMAGES WAS EXCESSIVE OR

45:16 - PREJUDICIAL OR HOWEVER, THEY

45:18 - REFER TO IT ALTERNATIVELY.

45:21 - THEY SIMPLY TOOK THE LARGEST

45:24 - AMOUNT OF ECONOMIC DAMAGES

45:27 - TESTIFIED TO BITE THE

45:29 - PLAINTIFF'S EXPERT.

45:31 - ON OPPOSED BY ANY OTHER EXPERT

45:34 - AND SUBTRACTED THE HIGHEST

45:36 - NUMBER. FROM THE TOTAL

45:39 - SURVIVAL AND

45:40 - THEN ARRIVED AT THE FIGURE OF

45:41 - ONE 0.1 3 MILLION SO THEN THE

45:44 - QUESTION IS WILL IT. EVERYBODY

45:46 - AND AND IN FACT IN ONE OF

45:48 - THEIR BRIEFS. KELLY SAID THAT

45:51 - WAS EASY TO CALCULATE THIS

45:52 - NUMBER BECAUSE YOU TAKE 2.7 WE

45:55 - SUBTRACTED FROM THE TOTAL

45:56 - SURVIVAL, YOU GET

45:58 - 1.1 3 AND THERE'S NO OTHER WAY

46:01 - THEY COULD HAVE AWARDED A 1.1 3

46:03 - FOR NON-ECONOMIC EXCEPT FOR

46:05 - PAIN AND SO WHAT.

46:06 - I THOUGHT WHAT WE ONLY TOOK

46:08 - THIS ON A SHIP WITH ANY DOES IT

46:09 - YOU GOT IT YOU TOLD JUSTICE

46:11 - TANI WHO THAT YOU'RE NOT ARGUE

46:12 - EXCESSIVE NUTS. NOT ARGUE

46:15 - EXCESSIVE THAT SOMETHING THAT'S

46:16 - WHAT THE SUPERIOR COURT SAID

46:18 - WHEN THEY CAN JUMP TO AT THAT

46:21 - RISK IS THAT 30 COOK SAYS THEY

46:23 - ARE NOT EXCESSIVE AS A MATTER

46:24 - OF LAW I DON'T THINK IT IS AS A

46:25 - MATTER OF LAW THE JURY WAS

46:27 - CHARGED CONSISTENT WITH AND

46:29 - THEN THEN AGAIN GETTING BACK TO

46:31 - THE ISSUE BEFORE US NOT THE

46:32 - ISSUE THE SUPERIOR COURT.

46:34 - THEY DECIDED THAT THE EXPERT

46:36 - WITNESS GAVE A LAY OPINION

46:38 - THAT'S NOT THE FOREST.

46:40 - >>THEY THEY

46:41 - THEY MADE.

46:42 - >>A LOT OF CALCULATIONS OF AND

46:44 - A VERDICT THAT'S NOT THE

46:45 - FOREST. THE ONLY THING BEFORE I

46:47 - SAYS THE VERDICT SLIP. THEY USE

46:49 - THE STANDARD SUGGESTED

46:50 - CIVIL JURY TRYING TO APPRECIATE

46:52 - IS NOT BINDING ON US, BUT THEY

46:53 - USE

46:53 - THAT SLIPPED. LAST NIGHT I WENT

46:56 - AND LOOKED AT PULLED OUT MY

46:57 - SUGGESTED SO WOULD REACH OUT

46:59 - THE CHARGES AND THERE

47:00 - IT IS AND IN IN IN IN THIS

47:02 - SUGGESTED TO THE JURY CHARGE

47:04 - A SLIP. IT SAYS

47:05 - AND GIVE YOUR SURVIVAL IN ANY

47:08 - WRONGFUL DEATH IN LUMP SUM AND

47:10 - THAT'S WHAT THEY DID.

47:12 - AS

47:12 - IT AGAIN OBVIOUSLY YOU'LL SEE

47:14 - MULTIPLE OPINIONS COMING OUT OF

47:16 - POSITION STAY FIXED WHERE

47:17 - THEY ARE. BUT I TEND TO BE WITH

47:20 - JUSTICE BROBSON US LET'S MAKE

47:22 - THIS A SIMPLE RED CAR BLUE CAR.

47:24 - COURT CASE. THE TRIAL JUDGE'S I

47:28 - DID WHEN I WAS OUT OF CONCORD

47:29 - FOR MANY YEARS THAT

47:30 - I WANT TO GENERAL GUARD,

47:31 - ACCORDING TO THE MOUTH OF

47:32 - BLACK. AND THAT'S THE END OF IT

47:34 - THEN YOU WOULD ARGUE YEAR.

47:36 - IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR CASE

47:37 - THAT THAT YOU NEED THAT THERE'S

47:40 - A CERTAIN WAY OVER THERE IF YOU

47:41 - DON'T ASK FOR PAIN AND SEPARATE

47:42 - SUFFERING. A LOSS OF ENJOYMENT

47:45 - OF LIFE ANXIETY HUMILIATION.

47:47 - IMPAIRMENT DISFIGUREMENT ALL

47:49 - SEPARATELY WHAT AM I MISSING.

47:51 - WELL NO I DON'T THINK THAT

47:52 - THAT'S WHAT OUR ARGUMENT IS OUR

47:54 - ARGUMENT IS 2 FOLD AND IT

47:55 - STATED IN THE QUESTION THAT WAS

47:57 - CERTIFIED BY THE COURT WHICH

47:58 - IS.

47:58 - >>WHEN A PARTY HAS A REASON TO

48:00 - KNOW IN ADVANCE EITHER

48:03 - IN ADVANCE OF THE CASE

48:04 - BEGINNING OR PRIOR TO THE CASE

48:06 - GOING OUT WITH THE JURY THAT

48:07 - THERE MIGHT BE A QUESTION ABOUT

48:09 - A SPECIFIC. ELEMENT OF DAMAGES.

48:15 - A JURY RETURNS JUST A LUMP

48:17 - SUM VERDICT. THERE'S NO WAY TO

48:19 - PARSE THAT LATER

48:21 - AND IF YOU WOULD HAVE IF IF THE

48:23 - PARTY WHO APPEALS IS SAYING

48:25 - THAT A PARTICULAR THERE WAS A

48:26 - PARTICULAR PROBLEM WITH ONLY A

48:28 - CATEGORY OF THE

48:29 - ENTIRE E WHAT THEY DIDN'T ASK

48:32 - FOR THE DAMAGES TO BE

48:33 - CATEGORIZED.

48:35 - THAT PARTY

48:36 - HAS WAIVED AND SHOULD BE

48:37 - STOPPED AND WHY WHY ISN'T THE

48:39 - BIRD EQUALLY APPLY. WHOEVER

48:41 - TRIED TO SIGN ON YOUR CLIENT'S

48:43 - BEHALF.

48:44 - >>YESTERDAY ITEMS ATION.

48:46 - >>BECAUSE A PERSON LIKE LINE

48:48 - ASK FOR DIFFERENT SLIP BUT

48:49 - DIDN'T ASK FOR AN ITEM STATION.

48:51 - BUT

48:52 - SECOND OF ALL AS YOU SAID IT

48:54 - WAS THE STANDARD REQUEST AND

48:56 - WHY WOULD THE WOULD

48:57 - THE PLAINTIFF ASK FOR ANYTHING

49:00 - I MEAN I DON'T KNOW

49:01 - AND THERE ARE 1000 DECISIONS AS

49:03 - JUSTICE WEAPONS ARE ASKED TO

49:04 - AVOID TO AVOID THIS PROBLEM

49:06 - YOU'RE YOU'RE YOU'RE YOU'RE

49:07 - TRYING TO AVOID THE SUPERIOR

49:09 - COURT'S DECISION EVERY MAN.

49:11 - >>FOR A NEW DAMAGES

49:12 - DETERMINATION. IF YOU KNEW IT

49:14 - WAS AN ISSUE WHEN YOU WANT TO

49:15 - AVOID THE RAIN MAN WHICH YOU

49:16 - KNEW WAS IT WAS A STANDARD JURY

49:18 - FORM YOU HAVE ALL THE KNOWLEDGE

49:21 - THAT THE OTHER SIDE.

49:22 - >>AND AND AND YOUR SIGN YOU'RE

49:25 - BASICALLY SAYING IT WAS

49:26 - THEIR RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THIS

49:29 - BUT THEY'RE GETTING EXACTLY

49:30 - WHAT THE LAW PROVIDED ASSUMING

49:32 - THE SUPERIOR COURT CORRECT ON

49:33 - THE ISSUE WE

49:33 - DIDN'T TAKE. REMAIN FOR A JUROR

49:36 - FOR A FOR A NEW DAMAGE IS SO I

49:39 - DISAGREE FOR 2 REASONS ONE IS

49:41 - DO WE HAVE REASON TO KNOW.

49:43 - YES, EVERYBODY.

49:46 - HAD IN THE ROOM HAD REASON TO

49:47 - KNOW THEY MADE THEIR OWN

49:48 - DECISIONS RIGHT. BUT THE SECOND

49:50 - IS THAT

49:52 - THERE FOR US TO HAVE FORECAST A

49:54 - READING MAN. IN THE

49:56 - SUPERIOR COURT MEANS THAT WE

49:58 - WOULD HAVE FORECASTED THE JURY

50:00 - VERDICT WE WOULD HAVE FORECAST

50:01 - THAT THE TRIAL JUDGE'S OPINION.

50:04 - AND WE WOULD HAVE FORECASTED

50:05 - THE HELL THESE ISSUES PRESENTED

50:07 - TO THE SUPERIOR COURT ON

50:09 - APPEAL. IN PERFECT

50:12 - SYNCHRONIZATION RIGHT WE

50:14 - BECAUSE ONE. ONE FLAW IN

50:17 - OUR LOGIC WOULD HAVE LED TO A

50:21 - DIFFERENT RESULT

50:22 - WHEREAS THE PELLYS BECAUSE

50:24 - REMEMBER THE PELLYS FOR THE

50:25 - APPELLANTS AT THE SUPERIOR

50:27 - COURT.

50:28 - AND BECAUSE THE PLAYERS WANT A

50:30 - UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT AND THEN

50:31 - THE APPELLANTS A SUPERIOR COURT

50:34 - FLIP IT. SO THE

50:35 - QUESTION IS GIVEN THE FACT

50:37 - THAT.

50:39 - THEY KNEW WHAT THEY WERE GOING

50:40 - TO APPEAL. THEY KNEW WHAT.

50:44 - WHAT THEY HAD AGREED TO

50:45 - A TRIAL. WHY IS THIS THE BURDEN

50:48 - OF THE RAIN TOO WENDELL

50:50 - WHEN TEAR DIDN'T APPEAL

50:52 - THE VERDICT RESPONDED TO THAT A

50:55 - POST TRIAL MOTIONS

50:56 - THEY'RE ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT

50:58 - OF ALL IN FRANCE'S BECAUSE IT

51:00 - WAS A UNANIMOUS JURY VERDICT IN

51:01 - THEIR FAVOR AND BECAUSE THE

51:04 - TRIAL COURT ITSELF WITH A VIEW

51:06 - THIS ISSUE AND SUSTAINED THE

51:08 - JURY VERDICT. THERE'S NO REASON

51:10 - WHY THE PLAINTIFF WOULD EVER

51:12 - HAVE TO RIDDICK OUT THAT

51:15 - MANY STEPS

51:17 - BECAUSE PLANT DIDN'T BELIEVE

51:19 - THAT THEY WERE GOING TO BE THE

51:20 - HELL ANTS IN THE SUPERIOR

51:22 - COURT. I DON'T KNOW I DON'T

51:25 - KNOW IF I CAN

51:25 - AGREE WITH THAT PREMISE.

51:26 - I DON'T I THINK THE POINT OF

51:28 - PRIDE WAS REPRESENTED BY SOME

51:29 - VERY SMART LAWYERS KNEW THAT I

51:31 - KNEW THAT THERE WAS A CONCERN

51:33 - ABOUT LEAST ONE CATEGORY OF

51:36 - DAMAGES AND THE EVIDENCE NOT

51:37 - ONE CATEGORY OF DAMAGES AND

51:39 - YOU'RE SIGNING TO THE DEFENSE

51:41 - COUNSEL.

51:44 - THIS IDEA THAT THEY THAT THEY

51:46 - HAD TO CURE SOME SORT OF OF

51:49 - WAIVER. BYE-BYE AND ISN'T

51:51 - DAMAGES ALWAYS ISN'T DAMAGE IS

51:53 - ALWAYS AN ISSUE AT TRIAL

51:54 - CATEGORIES OF DAMAGES.

51:56 - WELL THERE'S MULTIPLE

51:57 - CATEGORIES, RIGHT IT CAN BE AND

51:59 - THAT'S THE ISSUE RIGHT HERE IS

52:01 - UP FORGET THE STANDARD CHARGES,

52:03 - PENNSYLVANIA WILL

52:04 - CIVIL PROCEDURE TO 23.3 WHICH

52:07 - IS BEING IN THE BOOK

52:09 - FOR REQUIRES THE DEFINITION TO

52:13 - BY THE TRIAL JUDGE TO THE

52:15 - JURY OF ECONOMIC AND

52:18 - NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES AND THERE

52:19 - ARE FOR DISCRETE CATEGORIES OF

52:21 - NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES. RIGHT

52:24 - THERE IN THEIR 3RD SOMETIMES

52:25 - THEY'RE FOUGHT OVER A TRIAL.

52:27 - YES AND SOMETIMES AS WE HAVE

52:28 - HERE IN THE PARTIES AGREE THE 2

52:30 - OF THE 4 WE JUST DON'T MAKE

52:32 - SENSE. THERE WAS NO REASON TO

52:34 - HAVE A A A CHARGE BOUND PARIS

52:36 - MANNER HE MERELY A SHUNS CASE

52:38 - AND THERE WAS NO REASON FOR THE

52:39 - JUDGE TO DEFINE DISFIGUREMENT

52:42 - IN THIS CASE RIGHT

52:43 - SO THE JUDGE DIDN'T CHARGE ON

52:45 - THOSE 2 ELEMENTS, THE ONLY

52:46 - CHARGED ON THE OTHER 2 ELEMENTS

52:48 - BUT THE THE DIFFERENCES THAT

52:50 - PLAINTIFF. AT THE TIME.

52:55 - WHATEVER HE

52:55 - BELIEVED BUT I BELIEVE THAT

52:57 - THIS ISSUE WAS AN EVIDENTIARY

52:58 - ISSUE WHICH IS NOT BEFORE THE

53:00 - COURT I'M NOT TRYING TO TAKE US

53:01 - THERE. BUT BELIEVE THAT WAS

53:03 - NEVER VENTURE ISSUE THAT HAD

53:04 - ALREADY BEEN RESOLVED.

53:06 - AND THAT IT HAD NOTHING TO DO

53:09 - WITH IT. THE DAMAGE CALCULATION

53:12 - NECESSARILY OF THE JURY.

53:13 - BUT THE PROBLEM IS WE'LL NEVER

53:15 - KNOW RIGHT THERE'S NO WAY TO

53:17 - KNOW THAT WHAT THIS COURT

53:19 - SETTING SHIFLETT AND WHAT IT

53:20 - HAS SAID PREVIOUSLY WHICH IS IF

53:23 - THERE'S A QUESTION THAT COULD

53:26 - CLEAR THIS UP. SO WE

53:28 - WOULD KNOW WAS ONE 0.1 3

53:30 - MILLION ASSIGNED BY THE

53:31 - TORY FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING

53:33 - CONSCIOUS PAIN AND

53:34 - OR NOT THAT'S ON THE PARTY

53:37 - BACK REQUIREMENT IS ON THE

53:40 - DEFENDANT IN IN CIRCUMSTANCES

53:43 - LIKE THIS BECAUSE

53:45 - WE WOULD NOTE, WE WOULDN'T BE

53:47 - SPECULATING WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO

53:48 - WORRY ABOUT WE HAVE TO I GUESS

53:50 - WHAT WE HAVE TO SPECULATE WHY

53:51 - CAN'T WE JUST SAY IT WAS A

53:53 - SINGLE

53:53 - LUMP SUM. A WAR JUST LIKE JUST

53:56 - LIKE A STANDARD JURY

53:56 - INSTRUCTION PROVIDES.

53:58 - >>NO ONE ASKED

53:58 - FOR SEGREGATION. AND AND THE

54:01 - SUPERIOR COURT RULED THAT THERE

54:03 - WAS AN EVIDENTIARY ISSUES WITH

54:04 - THE DAMAGE CALCULATIONS WELL

54:05 - ISN'T THAT ENOUGH TO SEND IT

54:06 - BACK QUITE A BIT ONLY IF WE

54:08 - LIKE THAT ONLY IF WE ADOPT THIS

54:10 - IDEA THAT YOU HAVE TO PARSE

54:11 - THE DAMAGES. IF YOU GET INTO

54:13 - YOUR POINT WHICH IS WE DON'T

54:14 - KNOW HOW THE EVIDENCE IMPACT NO

54:16 - I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THE

54:17 - DAMAGE JUST HAVE TO BE PARSED

54:18 - EVERY TIME. THE POINT

54:20 - IS THAT YOU CAN HAVE A LUMP

54:22 - SUM. BUT WE DON'T KNOW HOW THE

54:24 - JURY PERCOLATED THAT LUMP SUM.

54:27 - SO MAYBE THE ENTIRE AND WHAT

54:29 - MISTER SENT OFF.

54:30 - >>AND I GUESS I'M JUST

54:31 - REPEATING MYSELF BECAUSE I

54:33 - DON'T UNDERSTAND THE REAL

54:34 - THING. SO AGAIN I SAY RESPONSE

54:37 - TO THAT BEFORE SO WHAT JURIES

54:38 - RETURNED VERDICTS. AND GENERAL

54:41 - LUMP SUMS ALL BECAUSE IT'S

54:43 - TRIAL COURT'S DISCRETION IS

54:44 - WHETHER THE JURY GETS A SPECIAL

54:46 - JURY SLIPPERY GENERAL TO

54:48 - REFLECT HERE THE TRIAL COURT

54:50 - USED THE THE STANDARD JURY

54:52 - SLIP IN AND IT SAYS IN IT THE

54:55 - BOTTOM OF BOTH OF THE SURVIVOR

54:58 - AND AND WRONGFUL DEATH. GIVEN

55:00 - IN A SINGLE

55:01 - LUMP SITE I THINK IT JUST SEEMS

55:03 - TO ME WELL FIRST OF ALL I'M NOT

55:05 - SURE WHY YOU'RE ARGUING WHAT

55:06 - YOU'RE ARGUING THE FOOTAGE IS

55:07 - PROTECTED YOUR JURY VOTED THE

55:09 - TEAM'S TO BE

55:10 - BUT THAT'S NEITHER HERE NOR

55:11 - THERE BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHERE

55:12 - WE ARE TODAY.

55:13 - IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHAT YOU'RE

55:14 - ARGUING IS REALLY DANGEROUS

55:16 - WHICH IS THIS SOMEBODY DOESN'T

55:17 - INSIST ON ITEM IS ATION

55:19 - AND LATER SOMEBODY WANTS TO

55:21 - ATTACK THE THE AMOUNT OF THE

55:23 - VERDICT. THEY CAN FALL BACK ON

55:25 - THIS ARGUMENT,

55:26 - IT'S NOT SIMPLY THAT THEY WANT

55:27 - TO ATTACK THE AMOUNT OF THE

55:29 - VERDICT.

55:29 - >>AS A WHOLE IT. IT'S THAT

55:32 - THERE'S YESTERDAY THAT UP

55:34 - PORTION OF THE HOLE IS

55:37 - IMPROPERLY GRANT AND

55:39 - THE REASON WHY WE NEED TO HAVE

55:42 - SPECIFIC YOUR INNER ON TOYS IN

55:43 - A CASE LIKE THIS.

55:45 - IT'S BECAUSE NOBODY INCLUDING

55:47 - THE SUPERIOR COURT HAS SAID

55:49 - THAT 2.7 MILLION DOLLARS THAT

55:51 - EVERYBODY HAS MAGICALLY

55:52 - ATTRIBUTED TO NON-ECONOMIC LOSS

55:55 - WITHOUT ANY SPECIFICATION RIGHT

55:58 - THAT

55:58 - THAT SPOT BECAUSE THERE WAS

56:01 - EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ACT IN

56:02 - THAT SPOT.

56:03 - SO THEN THEY FALL BACK TO THIS

56:06 - IDEA THAT 1.1

56:08 - 3 MILLION DOLLARS WAS

56:09 - IMPROPERLY AWARDED AND THE

56:11 - PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THE

56:13 - PROPERTY AWAY BUT NOT

56:14 - EXCESSIVE.

56:18 - NO IT WAS THAT IT WAS

56:19 - IMPROPERLY AWARDED BASED UPON

56:20 - THE ADMISSION OF PREJUDICIAL

56:22 - EVIDENCE WHITE WAS IMPROPER.

56:25 - WHAT WAS IMPROPERLY WITH

56:26 - IMPROPER

56:28 - I HAVE NO IDEA I DON'T THINK IT

56:29 - WAS IMPROPER, I MEAN, BUT.

56:32 - >>HE IS REPLACED BY THE

56:33 - F WORD TO MY QUESTION ABOUT ALL

56:35 - OF IT TO BE HONEST WITH YOU I

56:40 - BUT WITHOUT A FINDING THAT THE

56:42 - VERDICT IS EXCESSIVE. HOW

56:44 - DO YOU TAKE THAT BURDEN AWAY

56:46 - FROM THE QUAKE HIT CORRECT.

56:49 - I

56:49 - AGREE COMPLETELY.

56:51 - >>THERE'S NEVER BEEN A FINDING

56:52 - OF THAT SECOND WEEK SO I THINK

56:54 - WE WE HAVE AN ISSUE BEFORE.

56:57 - WE WE HAVE AN ISSUE BEFORE US

57:01 - THAT WE PRAISE AND REJECTED

57:03 - OTHERS. BUT.

57:06 - THE FACT OF MATTER IS WHEN YOU

57:08 - LOOK AT THE SUPERIOR

57:09 - COURT OPINION. THERE WAS AN

57:12 - ISSUE BEFORE THE SUPERIOR COURT

57:13 - WHETHER OR NOT THIS VERDICT

57:15 - WASTE EXCESSIVE. THIS IMPERIAL

57:17 - COURT DIDN'T SAY IT WAS

57:19 - EXCESSIVE. THEY JUST SAID THEY

57:21 - DIDN'T LIKE

57:23 - THE VERDICT AND IT COULD HAVE

57:25 - BEEN IMPACTED BY IMPROPER

57:28 - EXPERT TESTIMONY ON A NON

57:31 - ECONOMIC LOSS. THEREFORE

57:33 - TAKEAWAY PLAINTIFF ENTIRE

57:35 - BURDICK FOR THE SURVIVAL ACTION

57:38 - DAMAGES AND RETRY IT.

57:39 - HER AUNT. I'M GROPING WITH

57:42 - HOW YOU GET TO THAT

57:45 - POINT IF YOU HAVEN'T FOUND

57:47 - THERE'S ANYTHING WRONG WITH THE

57:48 - VERDICT PER SE.

57:50 - I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH YOU AND

57:52 - THERE'S NO WAY.

57:53 - >>TO GET TO THAT POINT WE COULD

57:56 - TAKE AWAY THE PLANS FOR IT

57:57 - IF YOU CAN'T POINT TO A

58:00 - SPECIFIC. WHAT REASON.

58:02 - NOW FOR ALL WE KNOW

58:05 - THE JURY.

58:06 - >>AWARDED THE ENTIRE 3 POINT

58:09 - PLUS MILLION DOLLARS FOR PAIN

58:11 - AND SUFFERING.

58:12 - >>OR FOR ECONOMIC LOSS. IT

58:14 - COULD BE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER

58:16 - AND ANYWHERE IN BETWEEN

58:18 - ANYWHERE IN BETWEEN THAT COULD

58:19 - HAVE BEEN A DOLL.

58:20 - >>BUT UNLESS SOMEONE SAID THAT

58:23 - IS.

58:24 - >>WANG THAT'S EXCESSIVE THAT

58:27 - CAN NOT BE NO ONE. NO ONE TO

58:30 - THE TRIAL COURT

58:31 - REJECTED IT. I MEAN IN JUDGE

58:33 - JOHNSON WROTE AN EXCELLENT

58:35 - TRIAL COURT OPINION SUPERIOR

58:37 - COURT DIDN'T TOUCH IT. THEY

58:40 - JUST DECIDED. THERE WAS

58:42 - IMPROPER EXPERT TESTIMONY.

58:45 - CORRECT YEAH IT COULD HAVE

58:46 - IMPACTED THE VERDICT BUT THAT

58:48 - DOESN'T STAB LISH PREJUDICE

58:50 - WHICH WOULD ESTABLISH PREJUDICE

58:51 - WHY SAID IT RESULTED IN AN

58:54 - EXCESS OF VERDICT SO.

58:55 - >>WE'RE MISSING THAT PART OF

58:57 - THE CALCULATION. IN

59:00 - THIS CASE.

59:01 - >>WHAT KIND OF IT MISTER SET UP

59:02 - I THINK YOUR VERDICT WAS

59:03 - PERFECT THAT WOULD HAVE UPHELD

59:05 - THAT IF THAT WAS THE QUESTION

59:06 - BEFORE US THAT DOESN'T MEAN

59:07 - THIS VERDICT WITH RESPECT

59:09 - WHAT WE'LL FIGURE THIS OUT AND

59:11 - SEE IF I CAN JUST SAY IN

59:12 - CLOSING THAT WE'RE NOT

59:13 - SUGGESTING THAT THE VERDICT

59:14 - SLIP WAS BAD

59:15 - WORD THAT.

59:16 - >>I WAS I BELIEVE CORRECT OR

59:18 - THE ONLY SUGGESTION. WE'RE

59:19 - MAKING IS THAT IF YOU IF A

59:22 - PARTY HAS A REASON TO BELIEVE

59:24 - THAT THEY WILL THEMSELVES

59:25 - APPEAL A PARTICULAR ISSUE THAT

59:27 - A QUESTION ON THE VERDICT SLIP

59:29 - THE ABOUT LIABILITY ABOUT THEM

59:31 - JUST CAN

59:31 - CLEAR UP THEN IT'S OF THAT

59:33 - PARTY'S RESPONSIBILITY

59:34 - TO ACT THE QUESTION BEFORE THE

59:36 - TRIAL COURT AND THEN HAVE THE

59:38 - TRIAL COURT RULE THAT ARE TOO

59:40 - AREN'T YOU GO THROUGH THE CART

59:41 - BEFORE

59:42 - THE HORSE.

59:43 - >>NO LAWYER KNOWS UNTIL THE

59:44 - JURY

59:45 - COMES BACK WHERE THEIR PROBLEM

59:48 - IS OR ISN'T AS YOU DESCRIBED,

59:50 - AND SO YOU'RE REALLY IS THAT IN

59:52 - EVERY CASE EVERYWHERE HAS FOR

59:54 - PAST THAT HAS FOR EVERY ITEM

59:56 - SHOULD FACE WAIVER.

59:58 - 000 >>NO I DON'T THINK SO I THINK

01:00 - 01.760 IN THIS CASE IN PARTICULAR

01:00 - 03.110 BECAUSE THERE WAS

01:00 - 05.450 TESTIMONY YOU KNOW THIS IS ONE

01:00 - 07.440 OF A FEW CASES WHERE THERE WAS

01:00 - 09.060 ACTUALLY LAY AND EXPERT

01:00 - 10.690 TESTIMONY ABOUT CONSCIOUS PAIN

01:00 - 12.500 AND SUFFERING PRIOR TO DEATH.

01:00 - 14.240 RIGHT AND SO IN

01:00 - 16.390 THIS CASE, EVERYBODY KNEW THAT

01:00 - 18.150 THE VALUATION OF CONSCIOUS PAIN

01:00 - 19.850 AND SUFFERING WAS GOING TO BE

01:00 - 20.210 PART OF

01:00 - 21.830 THE CASE BECAUSE IT'S PART OF

01:00 - 23.410 THE STANDARD YOUR CASE THERE

01:00 - 25.450 WAS A A MOTION AND LEMONADE BY

01:00 - 26.930 THE DEFENSE COUNSEL TO PROVE.

01:00 - 28.460 >>INCLUDE PAIN AND SUFFERING

01:00 - 30.850 WHICH WAS WON BY. BY DEFENSE

01:00 - 31.550 COUNSEL RAISE

01:00 - 33.650 THE MOTION. WITH TRIAL JUDGE

01:00 - 35.830 RULED IN FAVOR OF THE PLAINTIFF

01:00 - 37.120 THAT THE PAIN AND SUFFERING

01:00 - 40.300 WOULD COME IN. THE JURY.

01:00 - 42.940 WHICH WOULD.

01:00 - 45.840 IN MY MIND SHIFT THE BURDEN TO

01:00 - 48.050 THE DEFENSE COUNSEL TO RAISE AN

01:00 - 48.730 OBJECTION

01:00 - 51.710 TO SEE SET A AMOUNT ON THE

01:00 - 53.070 VERDICT SLIP SO THAT IF THEY

01:00 - 54.250 WERE GOING TO PURSUE THAT ON

01:00 - 56.610 APPEAL THAT WE WOULD KNOW WHAT

01:00 - 56.970 THAT

01:00 - 59.470 NUMBER WAS AND THEN I DON'T

01:00 - 00.710 MEAN TO THROW A MONKEY WRENCH

01:01 - 02.280 INTO THIS BUT THAT AND I AGREE

01:01 - 03.500 WITH YOU YOUR HONOR BUT THE

01:01 - 04.650 SUPERIOR COURT MADE IT EVEN

01:01 - 05.770 MORE CONFUSING BECAUSE THE

01:01 - 06.840 TRIAL COURT.

01:01 - 09.630 >>ALLOWED BOTH THE LAY WITNESS

01:01 - 11.220 TESTIMONY IN THE EXPERT WITNESS

01:01 - 12.600 TESTIMONY GO TO GO TO

01:01 - 15.010 THE JURY BUT THEN THE SUPERIOR

01:01 - 16.820 COURT SPLIT THAT IN HALF AND

01:01 - 18.260 SAID CONSISTENT WITH

01:01 - 20.210 PENNSYLVANIA JURISPRUDENCE THE

01:01 - 22.910 WAY TESTIMONY WAS EXACTLY THE

01:01 - 24.200 KIND OF TESTIMONY YOU WOULD

01:01 - 26.230 EXPECT TO HEAR AND THEY

01:01 - 28.120 SAID THAT THEY WEREN'T YOU KNOW

01:01 - 29.160 TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE WAS

01:01 - 30.730 ANY CLAIM THAT THAT WAS

01:01 - 32.510 IMPROPER THAT THEY HAD

01:01 - 35.430 DENY THAT AND THAT IT WAS ONLY

01:01 - 36.700 THE EXPERT TESTIMONY.

01:01 - 39.200 SO NOW NOT ONLY DID THE TRIAL

01:01 - 40.370 COURT ALREADY MAKE THAT

01:01 - 42.340 DECISION AND DECIDE AGAINST THE

01:01 - 44.020 DEFENDANTS BUT THEN A SUPERIOR

01:01 - 45.770 COURT FURTHER WHITTLED THAT

01:01 - 47.340 DECISION DOWN TO JUST UP.

01:01 - 49.620 HE'S OF THE EVIDENCE ABOUT

01:01 - 50.820 CONSCIOUS PAIN AND SUFFERING.

01:01 - 53.230 SO THE POINT IS AND AND

01:01 - 55.700 THE RECORD. REVEALS THAT THERE

01:01 - 57.260 WAS A BACK AND FORTH ABOUT THE

01:01 - 58.260 JURY CHARGE

01:01 - 00.150 ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT CONSCIOUS

01:02 - 01.240 PAIN AND SUFFERING SHOULD BE IN

01:02 - 03.440 OR NOT AND WHO SUBMITTED WHAT

01:02 - 05.220 AND ULTIMATELY THE

01:02 - 07.160 JUDGE DECIDED TO GIVE A CHARGE

01:02 - 09.490 CONSISTENT WITH 2 23.3.

01:02 - 13.500 ABOUT 2 OF THE 4 CATEGORIES FOR

01:02 - 15.630 NON-ECONOMIC LOSS, BUT IT

01:02 - 16.920 SHOULDN'T BE THOUGH WE HAVE

01:02 - 18.450 SPURRED AND TO RICK QUEST THE

01:02 - 20.590 CATEGORIZATION JUST NOT JUST

01:02 - 22.360 LIKE IT'S IT'S NOT

01:02 - 23.900 THE PLANTS PER WASN'T PLANS

01:02 - 25.860 PARTNERSHIP WITH THE PROBLEM IS

01:02 - 28.910 IT NOW IF WE GO BACK TO US FOR

01:02 - 30.490 A NEW TRIAL ON DAMAGES

01:02 - 31.680 FIRST OF ALL WHO KNOWS WHEN

01:02 - 33.580 THAT WILL HAPPEN AND THAT'S NOT

01:02 - 34.710 THIS COURT'S PROBLEM, BUT

01:02 - 36.070 HONESTLY WHO KNOWS WHAT

01:02 - 38.220 WILL HAPPEN. SECONDLY WE TAKING

01:02 - 39.510 AWAY THE FULL AMOUNT OF

01:02 - 42.240 SURVIVAL ACT. WHICH

01:02 - 45.170 PEOPLE WE AT LEAST AGREE THAT A

01:02 - 46.730 PORTION OF WHICH PROPERLY

01:02 - 49.560 AWARDED AND 3RD YOU WILL BE

01:02 - 51.320 SAYING THAT THERE'S AN

01:02 - 53.980 EXCESSIVE VERDICT WHEN THERE'S

01:02 - 55.280 NEVER BEEN A FINDING OF AN

01:02 - 57.060 EXCESSIVE VERDICT IN THIS CASE

01:02 - 58.960 AND THERE COULD NEVER BE

01:02 - 59.340 BECAUSE WE

01:02 - 02.250 DON'T KNOW AS JUSTICE WHACK IN

01:03 - 03.730 JUST A STARTING POINT IT OUT WE

01:03 - 05.050 JUST DON'T KNOW WHAT HAPPENED

01:03 - 06.280 IN THE JURY ROOM I WILL NEVER

01:03 - 06.630 KNOW.

01:03 - 09.860 WE THANK YOU VERY MUCH WELL ARE

01:03 - 10.930 YOU MISTER RIGHT.

01:03 - 14.010 >>THIS BIG RED YOU'RE GOING TO

01:03 - 16.060 CLEAR ALL THIS UP FOR US RIGHT.

01:03 - 17.720 >>HAHA

01:03 - 20.120 >>WE'RE GOOD MORNING AND

01:03 - 21.180 THERE'S AND MAY PLEASE THE

01:03 - 22.510 COURT MORNING MCBRIDE FOR A

01:03 - 23.860 DOCTOR COULD ALI AND SAINT

01:03 - 25.780 LUKE'S HOSPITAL. I WANT TO

01:03 - 27.130 START WITH THE LAST POINT THAT

01:03 - 29.240 MISTER SENT UP RAISED WHICH IS

01:03 - 30.980 THAT THE ARGUMENT THAT THE

01:03 - 32.600 PLAINTIFFS HAVE MAIL ALONG IS

01:03 - 34.370 THAT THE NEIGHBORS TESTIMONY

01:03 - 36.810 WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN THE

01:03 - 38.310 PAIN AND SUFFERING AWARD.

01:03 - 40.320 SO EVEN IF THERE HAD BEEN AN

01:03 - 42.060 ITEM IS ATION OF THIS AWARD

01:03 - 45.020 SEPARATING OUT WAGES FROM PAIN

01:03 - 46.830 AND SUFFERING. IT WOULDN'T

01:03 - 48.180 SOLVE THE PROBLEM. THEIR

01:03 - 50.190 ARGUMENT WOULD BE THE NEIGHBORS

01:03 - 52.370 TESTIMONY ALONE WAS SUFFICIENT.

01:03 - 54.580 AND WE CAN ASK THE JURY TO

01:03 - 57.340 ITEMIZE WHICH PIECE OF EVIDENCE

01:03 - 58.380 THEY RELIED ON

01:03 - 59.920 IN REACHING THE VERDICT AND

01:03 - 01.580 THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE

01:04 - 03.290 PLAINTIFFS ARE ASKING FOR US TO

01:04 - 05.060 PROVE PREJUDICE. WE HAVE

01:04 - 07.340 TO SHOW NOT JUST HOW MUCH PAIN

01:04 - 08.800 AND SUFFERING. BUT HOW MUCH OF

01:04 - 10.300 THE PAIN AND SUFFERING AWARD

01:04 - 11.700 WAS BASED ON THE EXPERTS

01:04 - 13.020 TESTIMONY AND THAT'S JUST IN

01:04 - 13.590 THE PAST.

01:04 - 19.620 I I.

01:04 - 22.040 >>WITH DISCONCERTING YOUR

01:04 - 23.260 ENTIRE BRIEF WITH

01:04 - 25.100 THE COURT DISCUSSING AN ISSUE

01:04 - 26.730 WHICH THE COURT DID NOT GRANT

01:04 - 28.130 AND IT SEEMED THAT YOU'VE NEVER

01:04 - 29.750 A DRAFT SO I GUESS THE QUESTION

01:04 - 32.010 I HAVE FOR YOU IS. WHAT

01:04 - 34.230 IT APPEARS. THE QUESTION IS IS

01:04 - 35.040 WHY SHOULD WE

01:04 - 37.780 OVERTURN SHIFT AND SHIP WITH

01:04 - 39.170 THE GENERAL BURDICK PLACES THE

01:04 - 41.560 BURDEN ON THE DEFENSE. WE DID

01:04 - 43.290 THAT THIS COURT NOT TOO LONG

01:04 - 45.220 AGO. THE ISSUE HERE

01:04 - 47.940 IS LET US REVISIT OUR DECISION

01:04 - 49.480 AND SHIP IT TELL US.

01:04 - 50.990 >>WHAT WE DID WRONG.

01:04 - 53.990 2 YEARS AGO. SO THAT IT NO

01:04 - 55.940 LONGER BUT DEFENSES BURDEN

01:04 - 58.720 TO REQUEST. PRESSURE A LOT IN

01:04 - 00.720 IRAQ, A TORY FOR THE DIVISION

01:05 - 02.340 OF DAMAGES. THAT'S IT IN A

01:05 - 03.350 NUTSHELL COMMIT.

01:05 - 04.930 >>OKAY, SO THE ISSUE IN SHIPLEY

01:05 - 07.330 GENERAL VERDICT ON LIABILITY

01:05 - 08.470 AND THERE WERE 2 SEPARATE

01:05 - 09.100 THEORIES.

01:05 - 11.260 ONE THAT THIS COULD BE

01:05 - 12.830 SUSTAINED IN THE OTHER ONE I I

01:05 - 14.010 THINK WAS TIME BART.

01:05 - 16.190 AND THE QUESTION WAS SINCE WE

01:05 - 17.430 DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE THE JURY

01:05 - 20.230 RELIED ON IF ONE OR THE OTHER

01:05 - 22.170 IS SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT

01:05 - 24.540 EVIDENCE IT CAN VARY CAN BE

01:05 - 26.230 UPHELD THAT WAS A VERDICT ON

01:05 - 27.910 LIABILITY THIS COURT HAS NEVER

01:05 - 29.790 SAID IN ANY CASE THAT I'M AWARE

01:05 - 31.390 OF THAT DAMAGES HAVE TO BE

01:05 - 32.940 ITEMIZED THAT'S A DISTINCTION

01:05 - 34.290 BETWEEN THIS COULD MEAN IT'S

01:05 - 34.900 IT'S ABOUT.

01:05 - 36.760 >>WAS THAT YOUR VERDICT SLIP.

01:05 - 41.650 YOU CHOSE NOT TO NOW TO GET

01:05 - 43.250 THE VERDICT THERE IT IS IT'S A

01:05 - 45.470 BLACK BOX AND NOW YOU WANT US

01:05 - 46.330 TO FIX THAT

01:05 - 48.120 WHY WASN'T IT YOUR JOB TO FIX

01:05 - 49.530 IT WHEN YOU HAD THE CHANCE, BUT

01:05 - 50.650 LET ME JUST FINISH BECAUSE THE

01:05 - 52.100 ONE POINT SHIPMENT WAS THAT IF

01:05 - 53.510 THE OTHER THEORY IS SUPPORTED

01:05 - 55.470 BY COMPETENT EVIDENCE IN THIS

01:05 - 55.880 CASE

01:05 - 56.530 WE KNOW.

01:05 - 58.210 >>THE MOST AGGRESSIVE NUMBER

01:05 - 59.440 THE HIGHEST NUMBER THAT THE

01:05 - 01.020 PLAINTIFFS PUT ON THE BOARD AND

01:06 - 02.310 JUDGE JOHNSON SAID IN HIS

01:06 - 04.750 OPINION WAS 2.7 IN WAGES.

01:06 - 07.030 SO WE KNOW AS A MATTER OF LOGIC

01:06 - 07.630 THAT IF YOU

01:06 - 09.370 RICK IF YOU SUBTRACT THAT

01:06 - 10.440 AMOUNT FROM THE OVERALL

01:06 - 12.030 PAINTING TO KNOW THAT AT ALL.

01:06 - 12.920 >>WE DON'T KNOW

01:06 - 16.150 YOU WELL, YOU WOULDN'T EXPECT

01:06 - 18.650 US TO ASSUME THAT OF THE

01:06 - 21.360 3.8. THE WAGES

01:06 - 23.520 WERE ACTS AND THE PAIN AND

01:06 - 25.320 SUFFERING WAS WHY THE JURY

01:06 - 27.710 WAS FREE, ABSENT KNOW THE JURY

01:06 - 29.370 WAS FREE TO GO ANYWHERE ALONG

01:06 - 30.160 THE SPECTRUM.

01:06 - 32.850 ON EACH COMPONENT WOULD GIVING

01:06 - 33.940 THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT WHEN

01:06 - 35.930 WE SAY 2.7 BUT GIVING THEM

01:06 - 37.630 EVERY SINGLE PENNY, IT'S STILL

01:06 - 37.830 ONE

01:06 - 38.350 0.3.

01:06 - 40.280 >>WHITNEY WAS TRY GIVING THEM

01:06 - 41.800 THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT BIG

01:06 - 44.240 CURIE WITH COLE COULD DECIDE

01:06 - 46.020 WHAT DOES IT WORK. WE

01:06 - 48.650 CAN KNOW FOR 5 TO 10 MINUTES

01:06 - 50.120 THAT YOU'RE NEVER GOING TO SEE

01:06 - 51.890 YOU WHY FORGET YOU'RE NEVER

01:06 - 53.130 GOING TO SEE YOUR KIDS AGAIN.

01:06 - 54.620 YOU NEVER GET A WALKING GUIDE

01:06 - 55.540 AND DOWN THE AISLE.

01:06 - 57.950 I MEAN A JURY COULD VERY WELL

01:06 - 59.480 HAVE DECIDED THAT THAT WAS FOR

01:07 - 01.770 3.5 MILLION DOLLARS. NOW YOU

01:07 - 03.150 MIGHT HAVE AN ARGUMENT IN THAT

01:07 - 04.430 CIRCUMSTANCE THAT THAT WAS

01:07 - 05.960 EXCESSIVE BECAUSE AND WE HAVE A

01:07 - 07.990 JURY FLIP THAT SAID THE OR THEY

01:07 - 09.630 WERE AWARDED 3.5 MILLION

01:07 - 12.440 DOLLARS. BUT WE HAVE NO IDEA

01:07 - 13.070 WHAT THEY GET.

01:07 - 15.300 WE'LL STAY ON THE WEEK, IT'S A

01:07 - 17.480 2.1 IS THIS IS ABOUT PREJUDICE.

01:07 - 18.590 THIS IS AN ISSUE.

01:07 - 19.760 >>ABOUT HOW YOU PROVE

01:07 - 21.350 PREJUDICE. IT IS A FACT IN THIS

01:07 - 22.730 CASE THAT THAT TESTIMONY WAS

01:07 - 24.090 INADMISSIBLE THIS QUICK DIDN'T

01:07 - 24.840 TAKE THAT.

01:07 - 26.930 SO THERE'S THERE'S INADMISSIBLE

01:07 - 28.790 EXPERT TESTIMONY PRESENTED AT

01:07 - 30.860 TRIAL. THE QUESTION IS COULD IT

01:07 - 32.860 HAVE AND DID IT OR DID IT

01:07 - 34.200 AFFECT THE VERDICT THIS COURT

01:07 - 35.270 IN IN BRADY.

01:07 - 41.160 I MEAN IT I THINK THIS

01:07 - 43.540 IS WHAT JUST THIS PROPERTY SAID

01:07 - 44.960 AT THE OUTSET WITH THE GREATEST

01:07 - 45.640 RESPECT.

01:07 - 48.880 WE DO LIMITING GRANTS OF

01:07 - 49.290 ALLOWED

01:07 - 49.950 TO APPEAL.

01:07 - 53.190 >>AND THE ONLY ISSUE BEFORE US

01:07 - 55.970 IS WHETHER THIS JURY SLIPPED

01:07 - 58.300 I THINK AND AGAIN MY COLLEAGUES

01:07 - 59.730 CAN CORRECT ME YOU CAN CORRECT

01:07 - 02.130 WHETHER THESE JURY SLIP IS

01:08 - 04.500 FATALLY FLAWED BECAUSE IT IN

01:08 - 05.510 ITEMIZED DAMAGES.

01:08 - 08.240 >>RIGHT BUT YOUR HONOR IN THE

01:08 - 09.530 CONTEXT OF PREJUDICE NOT

01:08 - 11.400 EXCESSIVE IN A SO THE ISSUE IS

01:08 - 13.380 THE GENERAL TEST FOR PREJUDICE

01:08 - 14.120 WHICH APPLIES IN

01:08 - 16.080 ALL CASES. THERE'S A CASE WE

01:08 - 17.860 CITED AND I THINK THE SUPERIOR

01:08 - 19.020 COURT RELIED ON IT THE RIGHT

01:08 - 20.520 PERSONS MARRIOTT HOTEL.

01:08 - 22.430 IT'S THE MIRROR IMAGE OF THIS

01:08 - 23.510 CASE, IT'S A CASE WHERE THE

01:08 - 25.160 PLAINTIFFS HAD THEIR EXPERT

01:08 - 27.410 PRECLUDED AND THEY AND THE JURY

01:08 - 31.370 NO DAMAGES AND THE SUPERIOR

01:08 - 33.010 COURT SAID THAT'S NOT A

01:08 - 34.580 FAIR TRIAL. IT COULD HAVE

01:08 - 36.090 AFFECTED THE VERDICT. THEY

01:08 - 37.230 DON'T HAVE TO SHOW HOW MUCH

01:08 - 38.490 MORE THAT VERDICT WOULD HAVE

01:08 - 40.300 BEEN IT WOULD BE IMPOSSIBLE TO

01:08 - 41.250 SHOW THAT IT COULD BE

01:08 - 43.110 ANY NUMBER BUT SOMEHOW THE

01:08 - 45.110 DEFENDANTS HAVE TO IN ORDER TO

01:08 - 46.190 PROVE PREJUDICE HAVE A

01:08 - 48.560 HIGHER STANDARD BECAUSE OF THE

01:08 - 50.840 ITEM IS A SHUNT INTO THE ONLY

01:08 - 52.900 STANDARD YOU HAVE THE ONLY YOU

01:08 - 55.150 HAD IN THIS CONTEXT WAS TO

01:08 - 56.240 PROVIDE THE VERDICT SLIP.

01:08 - 57.890 YOU WANTED THAT WOULD PROTECT

01:08 - 58.940 YOUR RIGHT TO CHALLENGE THE

01:08 - 00.550 PAIN AND SUFFERING COMPONENT.

01:09 - 02.890 >>LATER. YOU NOT ONLY

01:09 - 04.230 ACQUIESCED IN BUT ACTUALLY

01:09 - 06.660 PROVIDED DIVERTED FLIGHT WITH A

01:09 - 08.040 LUMP SUM FOR THE SURVIVAL

01:09 - 10.470 PLANE. AND NOW I DON'T KNOW HOW

01:09 - 12.630 YOU CAN BE HEARD TO CHALLENGE

01:09 - 14.250 YOUR OWN VERDICT FOR THAT WELL

01:09 - 15.930 IF YOU KNEW THE PAIN AND

01:09 - 17.510 SUFFERING WAS A PROBLEM THAT

01:09 - 19.040 YOU WANTED THAT WE WANTED THE

01:09 - 22.030 CHALLENGE LATER AND OBVIOUSLY

01:09 - 24.250 HE DID. THEN

01:09 - 25.710 THEN IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A

01:09 - 27.650 SIMPLE MATTER SIMPLY TO PROVIDE

01:09 - 29.840 A LINE ITEM FOR PAIN AND

01:09 - 31.290 SUFFERING ON THE SLIP AND THEN

01:09 - 32.700 YOU COULD BE WE'RE IN FRONT OF

01:09 - 34.280 HIS CHALLENGING THAT NOW WELL I

01:09 - 35.710 MEAN TO JUSTICE BARRETT POINT.

01:09 - 37.260 >>THAT THIS STANDARD JURY

01:09 - 39.640 INSTRUCTIONS. SPECIFICALLY SAY

01:09 - 40.500 TO AWARD.

01:09 - 42.930 SURVIVAL DAMAGES IN A LUMP SUM

01:09 - 44.940 AND THE STANDARD JURY VERDICT

01:09 - 46.700 FORM SAYS THE SAME THING SO WE

01:09 - 47.260 WOULD BE

01:09 - 48.760 DOING SOMETHING THAT'S

01:09 - 50.470 COMPLETELY CONTRARY TO WHAT THE

01:09 - 52.170 STANDARD TORY TRIBE SAYS IT YOU

01:09 - 54.190 COULD IT'S NOT THAT THE JURY

01:09 - 55.860 SLIPPED THE STANDARD

01:09 - 57.180 INSTRUCTION OF THE STANDARD

01:09 - 58.810 FORM IS FATALLY FLAWED.

01:09 - 01.000 IT'S THAT YOU COULD HAVE THE

01:10 - 03.050 GENERAL FORM OR YOU COULD HAVE

01:10 - 05.150 A SPECIAL VERDICT FORM IF

01:10 - 07.110 COUNCIL ASKED FOR AND THE COURT

01:10 - 09.030 AGREED YOUR HONOR I AGREE WITH

01:10 - 10.470 YOU 100% BUT WE'RE TALKING

01:10 - 11.990 ABOUT WAIVER NOW WE'RE TALKING

01:10 - 13.500 ABOUT UNDER PAIN OF WAVE OR DO

01:10 - 14.980 WE HAVE TO DO SOMETHING THAT IS

01:10 - 16.510 COMPLETELY CONTRARY

01:10 - 18.650 TO WHAT THE STANDARD FORM AND

01:10 - 21.010 THE JURY VERDICTS NOT DO YOU

01:10 - 22.740 HAVE TO DO NOT DO YOU HAVE TO

01:10 - 24.200 DO IT AT THE TIME OF TRIAL.

01:10 - 25.620 BUT IF YOU WANT TO CHALLENGE

01:10 - 27.490 SOMETHING LATER AND TRY TO

01:10 - 28.500 BREAK IT UP.

01:10 - 30.820 DID YOU WAIVE THAT OPPORTUNITY

01:10 - 32.780 BY NOT HAVING DONE IT AT TRIAL

01:10 - 34.140 THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING OF

01:10 - 35.360 THE QUESTION. I MEAN COUNCIL

01:10 - 36.450 REALLY WHERE THIS IS GOING IS

01:10 - 38.200 IF WE EXTEND SHIFLETT AND IN

01:10 - 40.240 THIS CASE. EVERY DEFENSE

01:10 - 41.570 COUNSEL IS GOING TO ASK FOR

01:10 - 43.060 ESPECIALLY IN IRAQ, THE TORIES

01:10 - 44.320 ON EVERY CATEGORY OF DAMAGES

01:10 - 45.260 AND EVERY CASE TO COVER YOUR

01:10 - 46.570 BUTT BECAUSE IT'S GOING IT'S

01:10 - 47.350 GOING TO COME TO SEE

01:10 - 48.250 ISSUE.

01:10 - 50.800 >>AND THAT'S GOING TO BE GOING

01:10 - 51.790 FORWARD THE IDEA THAT GENERAL

01:10 - 52.860 DAMAGES AWARD IS GOING TO GO

01:10 - 53.170 AWAY.

01:10 - 54.910 >>RIGHT BEYOND THAT IT AGAIN

01:10 - 56.370 BECAUSE THEIR ARGUMENT ALL

01:10 - 57.580 ALONG HAS BEEN THE NEIGHBORS

01:10 - 59.360 TESTIMONY WAS SUFFICIENT.

01:10 - 00.950 EVEN IF WE HAD ITEMIZED

01:11 - 03.060 WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO WHEN WE

01:11 - 04.190 WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO PROVE

01:11 - 05.750 PREJUDICE BECAUSE WE WOULD FACE

01:11 - 05.970 THAT

01:11 - 07.700 SAME ARGUMENT YOU DON'T KNOW

01:11 - 08.940 HOW MUCH OF THE JURY'S AWARD

01:11 - 09.990 WAS THE NEIGHBOR BASED ON THE

01:11 - 11.970 NEIGHBOR'S TESTIMONY VERSUS THE

01:11 - 13.140 EXPERTS NOW WE HAVE TO HAVE A

01:11 - 14.610 LINE ON THE JURY VERDICT I

01:11 - 14.940 HAVE TO.

01:11 - 17.150 >>BUT IT'S JUST IT'S NOT IT'S

01:11 - 18.610 NOT THE 4TH UNDERSTAND YOU ARE

01:11 - 19.800 GREAT. BUT THAT'S THE LOGICAL

01:11 - 21.990 CONCLUSION THAT SO LET'S TRY TO

01:11 - 23.310 GO WHICH HAS BROUGHT SOME GOOD

01:11 - 25.250 WHICH IS WE CAN CONCLUDE THIS.

01:11 - 27.170 >>WHY.

01:11 - 28.880 >>HE IS THE USE THE

01:11 - 32.300 STANDARD JURY 34 IN THIS CASE.

01:11 - 33.640 NOT

01:11 - 38.060 A WAIVER. THE ARGUMENTS THAT.

01:11 - 40.550 THAT IF YOU WANT TO MAKE.

01:11 - 43.300 WHY IS THE

01:11 - 45.710 USE OF THE WE USED WHAT IS

01:11 - 46.740 TRADITIONALLY USED TO

01:11 - 49.240 PLAY IT JUDGES USE ALL THE TIME

01:11 - 50.690 AND WITHIN THE STANDARD FORM IF

01:11 - 52.420 THIS COURT BELIEVES THAT THAT.

01:11 - 54.860 >>IS NOT APPROPRIATE, THEN IT

01:11 - 57.070 SHOULD DO SOMETHING TO YOU KNOW

01:11 - 58.350 AT LEAST LET THE COMMITTEE

01:11 - 58.910 KNOW.

01:12 - 02.510 HERE THOUGH.

01:12 - 04.540 >>IT'S SOME TIME

01:12 - 06.700 DURING TRIAL BEFORE THE JURY

01:12 - 08.800 SAT DOWN TO AWARD DAMAGES IN

01:12 - 11.040 THIS CASE. THE DEFENSE FILED

01:12 - 13.600 IT, A MOTION LEMONY TO PRECLUDE

01:12 - 15.170 THE JURY FROM HEARING ANY

01:12 - 17.370 EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO PAIN

01:12 - 19.540 AND SUFFERING AND YOU'VE LOST

01:12 - 21.170 THAT MOTION IN REAL MONEY SO

01:12 - 23.450 DOESN'T THAT PUT YOU ON NOTICE

01:12 - 25.320 THAT IF THAT ISSUE GOES TO THE

01:12 - 26.910 JURY, YOU'RE GOING TO ARGUE

01:12 - 29.050 THAT IN APPEALS AND SO YOU

01:12 - 30.360 WOULD NEED TO HAVE

01:12 - 33.130 THAT NUMBER SET ASIDE SOME

01:12 - 34.660 PLACE ON THAT VERDICT SLIP SO

01:12 - 35.690 YOU HAVE PRESERVED YOUR

01:12 - 36.400 ARGUMENT.

01:12 - 38.550 >>AND WHAT I'M SAYING IN YOUR

01:12 - 40.150 HONOR IS THAT THAT RUNS

01:12 - 42.540 CONTRARY TO TRADITION, THE

01:12 - 43.720 GENERAL STANDARD JURY

01:12 - 45.400 INSTRUCTIONS VERDICT SLIP.

01:12 - 46.940 AND IF THIS IS THE RULE THAT

01:12 - 48.060 THIS COURT WANTS TO HAVE

01:12 - 50.200 GOING FORWARD. IT IS THE BENCH

01:12 - 51.560 AND BAR SHOULD BE GIVEN NOTICE

01:12 - 53.410 BECAUSE THIS IS NOT THE WAY

01:12 - 55.800 IT'S IT'S NORMALLY TO SUGGESTED

01:12 - 57.700 INSTRUCTIONS. I UNDERSTAND THAT

01:12 - 59.940 AN UNSKILLED COUNCIL AS YOU

01:12 - 00.800 KNOW BECAUSE YOU'VE BEEN DOING

01:13 - 02.870 THIS A LONG TIME PROVIDE

01:13 - 05.320 PROPOSE VERDICT FORMS ALL THE

01:13 - 07.330 TIME. SOME OF US UP HERE WE

01:13 - 09.670 HAVE SEEN IN AND GIVE INJURIES

01:13 - 11.130 VERDICT FORMS WITH A

01:13 - 12.550 LINE ITEM FOR PAIN AND

01:13 - 14.020 SUFFERING SO FOR YOU TO STAND

01:13 - 15.810 HERE AND SUGGEST THAT THIS IS

01:13 - 16.330 SOMETHING

01:13 - 18.630 THIS VIOLATES ALL TRADITIONS IN

01:13 - 20.750 THIS COMMONWEALTH. IT IS NOT AS

01:13 - 22.890 I RONIA NOT AND

01:13 - 25.200 AND AGAIN COUNCIL OR NOT PART

01:13 - 27.910 OF PLANS. AND ESPECIALLY

01:13 - 29.100 SKILLED COUNCIL LATE

01:13 - 30.450 LIKE YOURSELVES OR WHOEVER

01:13 - 31.690 TRIED THE CASE FOR THE EU

01:13 - 33.540 DIDN'T TRY THAT I DID WE KNEW

01:13 - 35.320 THAT SO 2, 2,

01:13 - 36.990 TO SUGGEST

01:13 - 39.360 THAT WHEN COUNCIL ARE ON NOTICE

01:13 - 40.840 THAT THERE'S THIS ISSUE ON PAIN

01:13 - 42.260 AND SUFFERING THAT THEY

01:13 - 44.610 WOULDN'T. BE ON NOTICE.

01:13 - 46.250 TO GIVE A

01:13 - 47.820 VERDICT SLIP TO THE JUDGE WITH

01:13 - 49.460 US A LINE ITEM FOR THAT.

01:13 - 52.170 IF THE GUARDS BELIEVE I JUST

01:13 - 53.730 DON'T SEE HOW THAT ARGUMENT

01:13 - 56.840 HOLDS WATER AND AND HOW ONE

01:13 - 59.510 KID INFO. SUGGESTED STANDARD

01:13 - 01.530 INSTRUCTION. THE BUNKERS THAT

01:14 - 03.090 CLAIM. BUT AGAIN I THINK YOU

01:14 - 04.370 CAN USE ME FOR TALKING

01:14 - 06.020 PREJUDICE AND YOU CAN USE LOGIC

01:14 - 07.570 BECAUSE IN SHIFLETT THIS COURT

01:14 - 07.960 SAID.

01:14 - 09.370 >>THE OTHER THEORY HAS TO BE

01:14 - 10.410 SUPPORTED BY COMPETENT

01:14 - 12.050 EVIDENCE. THERE WAS NO

01:14 - 13.430 COMPETENT EVIDENCE BE ON THE

01:14 - 15.700 2.7 MILLION FOR THE FOR THE

01:14 - 17.130 WAGES THAT WAS THE HIGHEST

01:14 - 19.760 NUMBER. SO WE KNOW THAT THIS

01:14 - 22.260 WAS AFFECTED THAT THERE WERE IS

01:14 - 24.160 JUSTICE DONE YOU POINTED OUT.

01:14 - 26.960 IT'S A IT'S A BLACK BOX WE

01:14 - 29.120 DON'T KNOW THE JURY COULD HAVE

01:14 - 32.740 GIVEN 0 0 FOR WAGES AND

01:14 - 33.820 3.8

01:14 - 35.260 FOR PAIN AND SUFFERING FOR THE

01:14 - 36.010 OFF BUT THAT WOULD MAKE

01:14 - 37.460 ARGUMENTS STRONGER NOT WEAKER

01:14 - 38.650 YUAN TO BECAUSE IT WOULD SHOW

01:14 - 40.030 THAT THERE WAS AN EFFECT ON THE

01:14 - 41.300 VERDICT TO THE EXTENT THAT

01:14 - 42.410 THERE IS A PAIN AND SUFFERING

01:14 - 44.230 AWARD AT ALL. IT

01:14 - 46.740 WAS AFFECTED. THIS IS THE

01:14 - 48.270 SUPERIOR COURT OVER AND OVER

01:14 - 50.340 SAYS IF IT COULD HAVE AFFECTED

01:14 - 51.690 THE VERDICT IT COULD HAVE

01:14 - 53.040 AFFECTED THE OUTCOME WITH

01:14 - 54.000 THERE'S A PAIN AND SUFFERING

01:14 - 55.200 AWARD AT ALL.

01:14 - 56.840 AND AGAIN WE'RE GIVING THEM THE

01:14 - 58.160 LOWEST NUMBER FOR PAIN AND

01:14 - 00.350 SUFFERING SAYING IT'S ONE 0.1

01:15 - 02.850 3, 3, 0, THAT'S THE POINT WE

01:15 - 05.170 DON'T WE DON'T KNOW AND YOU

01:15 - 06.370 THERE'S NO WAY FOR YOU TO

01:15 - 08.560 COBBLE TOGETHER MASK TO

01:15 - 10.850 CUT TO TO PROVIDE AN ANSWER.

01:15 - 13.550 WHAT'S IN THAT BLACK BOX, WE

01:15 - 14.520 KNOW THAT THE JURY

01:15 - 16.860 WAS FREE AWARD MONEY

01:15 - 18.560 FOR PAIN SUFFERING AND FREEDOM

01:15 - 20.080 WILL AWARD MONEY FOR LOST

01:15 - 21.780 WAGES, BUT TO SIT HERE NOW FOR

01:15 - 22.530 ANY OF US.

01:15 - 24.420 >>FOR ANYBODY. 2

01:15 - 26.930 SAY WHAT'S IN THAT 3.8 IS

01:15 - 28.570 IMPOSSIBLE. AND THE POINT OF

01:15 - 31.070 THE CASES THAT YOU FOLKS

01:15 - 33.240 SUBMITTED THAT VERDICT SLIP YOU

01:15 - 34.160 BOUGHT YOUR PROBLEM.

01:15 - 38.770 >>YEAH, I FRANKLY THINK WE

01:15 - 41.200 UNDERSTAND THE I THINK WE'RE.

01:15 - 44.500 WE COVER THE SAME GROUND

01:15 - 46.260 FEEL FREE TO ANSWER JUST WHAT

01:15 - 47.550 JUSTICE WEX QUESTION THEY DON'T

01:15 - 48.200 WANT TO TAKE

01:15 - 50.190 ONE MINUTE BECAUSE WHAT YOU

01:15 - 51.850 WANT TO TELL US AN WILL

01:15 - 53.210 CONCLUDE THIS HOW YOU THINK

01:15 - 53.600 YOUR HONOR.

01:15 - 56.150 >>AGAIN THIS THIS IS ABOUT HOW

01:15 - 57.570 A PARTY AS PREJUDICE. THIS IS

01:15 - 58.660 DIFFERENT FROM SHIPLEY WHERE

01:15 - 59.980 THERE IS A GENERAL VERDICT ON

01:15 - 01.650 LIABILITY THIS IS JUST THE TEST

01:16 - 03.380 FOR PREJUDICE IN BRADY VERSUS

01:16 - 04.650 SERVICE THIS COURT SAID

01:16 - 06.090 IF IT HAD A SUBSTANTIAL

01:16 - 07.640 PROBABILITY OF AFFECTING THE

01:16 - 09.510 VERDICT. EXPERT TESTIMONY

01:16 - 10.750 WASN'T JUST THE AMOUNT OF THE

01:16 - 12.170 VERDICT BUT IT WAS THE EXPERT

01:16 - 14.190 TESTIMONY THAT CAME IN THAT

01:16 - 15.060 PARROTED THE LAY

01:16 - 16.930 WITNESSES TESTIMONY. IF THE

01:16 - 18.030 PLAINTIFFS DIDN'T THINK THAT

01:16 - 19.520 WAS GOING TO BE PREJUDICIAL IN

01:16 - 20.470 THE SENSE THAT IT WAS GOING TO

01:16 - 22.150 HELP THEIR CASE IN HER CASE.

01:16 - 23.890 THEY WOULD HAVE BROUGHT IN THEY

01:16 - 24.960 WOULDN'T HAVE MENTIONED IT

01:16 - 26.380 DURING CLOSING ARGUMENT DURING

01:16 - 27.710 THAT PRECIOUS TIME BEFORE THE

01:16 - 29.540 JURY. SO WE KNOW THAT THEY

01:16 - 32.050 BROUGHT THAT TESTIMONY IN TO TO

01:16 - 33.690 MAKE THAT POINTED TO PREJUDICE.

01:16 - 35.880 BUT THE JURY AGAINST OUR CLIENT

01:16 - 37.330 AND IT WORKED AND THERE WAS

01:16 - 39.960 DEFINITELY TESTIMONY, I'M THERE

01:16 - 41.970 IS WARD OF PAIN AND SUFFERING

01:16 - 43.130 AND WE KNOW THAT

01:16 - 44.590 BECAUSE THE MOST AGGRESSIVE

01:16 - 45.920 NUMBER PUT ON THE BOARD WAS

01:16 - 48.810 2.7 AND ANYTHING HIGHER THAN

01:16 - 49.710 THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN

01:16 - 51.180 SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE THE JURY

01:16 - 52.590 DOESN'T HAVE FREE REIN TO JUST

01:16 - 54.380 AWARD WHATEVER IT WANTS AND IN

01:16 - 56.240 LOST WAGES. SO WE KNOW THAT

01:16 - 58.000 THERE'S A NUMBER FOR THAT AND

01:16 - 59.650 WE CAN SUBTRACT THAT AND

01:16 - 01.450 SAY THAT THERE WAS AN AWARD FOR

01:17 - 02.600 PAIN AND SUFFERING INTO THE

01:17 - 03.840 EXTENT THERE'S INADMISSIBLE

01:17 - 05.130 TESTIMONY THAT COMES IN THAT

01:17 - 06.390 AFFECTS THAT AWARD

01:17 - 08.070 UNDER THIS COURT'S DECISION AND

01:17 - 09.340 BRADY THERE'S A SUBSTANTIAL

01:17 - 10.760 PROBABILITY THAT IT DID

01:17 - 13.240 AND THEREFORE THAT VERDICT HAS

01:17 - 14.500 TO BE VACATED THEY'RE GETTING A

01:17 - 15.200 NEW TRIAL.

01:17 - 16.810 I JUST WANT TO MENTION AGAIN

01:17 - 18.180 THE STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS

01:17 - 19.710 AND THAT THIS WOULD GO CONTRARY

01:17 - 21.260 TO THAT AND IF THIS COURT IS

01:17 - 23.190 INCLINED TO ISSUE SUCH A RULE

01:17 - 24.320 WHICH IS DIFFERENT FROM SHIP

01:17 - 25.920 PLANT BECAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT

01:17 - 27.090 THIS IS ABOUT DAMAGES.

01:17 - 28.450 AND THE COURT TO DO SO

01:17 - 30.270 PROSPECTIVELY WITH NOTICE TO

01:17 - 31.440 THE BENCH IN THE FIGHT. THANK

01:17 - 32.640 YOU. THANK YOU.

01:17 - 36.220 I HOPE THAT THE THE STUDENTS

01:17 - 38.140 ARE COURT REPLAY PAYING CLOSE

01:17 - 38.780 ATTENTION

01:17 - 42.650 THOSE ARE 2 FINE ARGUMENTS BY 2

01:17 - 43.390 OF OUR FINEST

01:17 - 46.010 >>MAYBE WE'VE ENCOURAGE SOME OF

01:17 - 47.720 THE STUDENTS TO BECOME LAWYERS

01:17 - 49.260 AND WHEN WE YOUR GUY YOU CAN

01:17 - 50.110 EXPLAIN IT TO ME.

01:17 - 56.890 >>THE NEXT CASE IS COMMONWEALTH

01:17 - 59.190 VERSUS VICTOR STEPHENSON THE

01:17 - 00.330 CASE RAISES THE QUESTION OF

01:18 - 01.840 WHETHER THE SUBJECT OF A

01:18 - 03.890 PROTECTION FROM ABUSE OR PFA

01:18 - 05.830 ORDER. COMMONLY REFERRED TO AS

01:18 - 07.630 A RESTRAINING ORDER CAN BE HELD

01:18 - 09.430 IN CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FOR

01:18 - 11.420 VIOLATING THE ORDER WHERE LAW

01:18 - 13.320 ENFORCEMENT DID NOT SERVE HIM

01:18 - 15.080 WITH THE ORDER BUT WHERE HE

01:18 - 17.260 OTHERWISE OBTAINS ACTUAL WERE

01:18 - 19.290 CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE THAT HAVE

01:18 - 21.150 BEEN ENTERED. THE FACTS ARE

01:18 - 22.390 RELATIVELY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

01:18 - 24.820 A WOMAN SOUGHT AND OBTAINED A

01:18 - 26.920 TEMPORARY PFA ORDER AGAINST THE

01:18 - 28.140 DEFENDANT STEPHENSON

01:18 - 30.040 PENDING A HEARING ON WHETHER

01:18 - 31.360 SHE WOULD ATTEMPT AND MORE

01:18 - 33.580 PERMANENT ORDER. STEVENSON WAS

01:18 - 35.020 SERVED WITH THE TEMPORARY ORDER

01:18 - 36.610 BUT FAILED TO APPEAR AT THE

01:18 - 38.260 HEARING AND WHICH ONE WAS

01:18 - 39.530 GRANTED A PERMANENT ORDER.

01:18 - 42.040 3 DAYS LATER STEVENSON WENT TO

01:18 - 43.270 THE WOMAN'S HOME TO RETRIEVE

01:18 - 44.600 SOME OF HIS PERSONAL PROPERTY.

01:18 - 48.000 WHERE HE WAS CONFRONTED BY ONE

01:18 - 49.380 OF HER RELATIVES WHO INDICATED

01:18 - 50.480 HE WAS NOT PERMITTED TO BE

01:18 - 52.430 THERE BECAUSE OF THE PFA ORDER

01:18 - 54.470 STEPHENSON LEFT. BUT LATER

01:18 - 56.310 RETURNED. STEVENSON WAS

01:18 - 58.600 CHARGED. AND CONVICTED OF

01:18 - 00.330 CRIMINAL CONTEMPT FOR VIOLATING

01:19 - 01.740 THE PERMANENT ORDER AND

01:19 - 02.880 CHALLENGE HIS CONVICTION ON THE

01:19 - 04.580 GROUND THAT HE WAS NEVER QUOTE

01:19 - 06.900 PROPERLY UNQUOTE NOTIFIED OF

01:19 - 09.230 THE ORDER STEVENSON RELIED ON

01:19 - 10.480 PROVISIONS OF THE PROTECTION

01:19 - 11.630 FROM ABUSE ACT

01:19 - 12.960 WHICH APPEARED TO DIRECT LAW

01:19 - 15.050 ENFORCEMENT TO SERVE PFA ORDERS

01:19 - 16.890 ON THE SUBJECTS OF THE ORDERS.

01:19 - 18.260 THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS

01:19 - 19.230 REJECTED THE CLAIM

01:19 - 20.830 RELYING ON PRECEDENT HOLDING

01:19 - 22.070 THAT THE DEFENDANT NEED ONLY

01:19 - 23.960 HAVE ACTUAL WERE CONSTRUCTIVE

01:19 - 25.880 NOTICE OF AN ORDER THAT IS HE

01:19 - 27.420 NEED ONLY KNOW THAT IT DOES

01:19 - 28.630 EXIST WE'RE UNDER THE

01:19 - 30.330 CIRCUMSTANCES HE SHOULD KNOW

01:19 - 32.100 THAT IT EXISTS STEVENSON

01:19 - 33.610 APPEALED TO THE SUPERIOR COURT

01:19 - 35.240 WHICH AFFIRMED HIS CONVICTION

01:19 - 36.400 ON THE SAME BASIS.

01:19 - 38.290 STUDENTS AND THEN SAW ALLOWANCE

01:19 - 39.450 OF APPEAL BEFORE THE SUPREME

01:19 - 41.140 COURT TO ADDRESS THAT QUESTION

01:19 - 42.790 I KNEW THE SUPREME COURT

01:19 - 44.830 GRANTED REVIEW ON APPEAL

01:19 - 46.540 STEVENSON CONTINUES TO ARGUE,

01:19 - 47.700 BUT HE WAS REQUIRED TO BE

01:19 - 49.530 NOTIFIED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT

01:19 - 51.280 PURSUANT TO THE PROTECTION FROM

01:19 - 53.030 ABUSE ACT AND PROSECUTORS

01:19 - 55.030 ARGUE THAT ANY FORM OF ACTUAL

01:19 - 56.230 OR CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE,

01:19 - 58.220 WE'LL DO. LET'S WATCH THE ORAL

01:19 - 59.570 ARGUMENTS AND COMMONWEALTH

01:19 - 00.310 VERSUS STEVENS.

01:20 - 12.110 >>WE GRANTED ALLOWANCE OF

01:20 - 13.150 APPEAL IN THIS MATTER TO

01:20 - 14.590 CONSIDER WHETHER THE SUPERIOR

01:20 - 16.120 COURT THAT

01:20 - 18.120 THE COMMONWEALTH WE CAN SUPPORT

01:20 - 19.680 A CONVICTION FOR INDIRECT

01:20 - 21.780 CRIMINAL ATTEMPT FOR A

01:20 - 23.310 VIOLATION OF A PROTECTION OF

01:20 - 24.850 ABUSE ORDER BY PRESENTING

01:20 - 26.340 EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT

01:20 - 28.260 RECEIVED NOTICE OF THE ENTRY

01:20 - 30.540 THE ORDER FROM A 3RD PERSON

01:20 - 32.630 WHO IS NEITHER LAW ENFORCEMENT

01:20 - 34.330 NOR PASSED BY THE COURT PROVIDE

01:20 - 35.880 THAT NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT

01:20 - 37.930 ONCE AGAIN THAT'S GOOD. GO

01:20 - 39.830 AHEAD AND EXPLAIN TO US WHY

01:20 - 41.260 SHOULD PREVAIL. GOOD MORNING

01:20 - 42.660 MAY PLEASE THE COURT AND MISTER

01:20 - 44.330 KARR BRINGING A HALF

01:20 - 45.630 MISTER STEPHENSON I THINK THAT

01:20 - 47.080 THERE IS SOME RISES THE ISSUES

01:20 - 48.510 ALL DIVE RIGHT IN TO COME OVER

01:20 - 49.810 SAYS PADILLA BECAUSE THAT'S

01:20 - 51.770 WHAT WE'RE HERE TO ADDRESS IN

01:20 - 54.800 THAT CASE THE THE VICTIM A

01:20 - 56.690 TEMPORARY PFA ORDER.

01:20 - 58.950 BARRING FAN FROM HAVING CONTACT

01:20 - 00.250 WITH HER FOR I BELIEVE WAS 18

01:21 - 02.510 MONTHS. AS IT HAPPENED THE

01:21 - 04.020 ORDER WAS ALL THIS HAPPENED ON

01:21 - 05.830 THAT WAY FRIDAY AFTERNOON SAID

01:21 - 06.900 IT WASN'T TIME TO TURN OUT A

01:21 - 08.430 WRITTEN ORDER YET. SHE WAS

01:21 - 10.920 ASSURED THAT PFA PFA REALLY FOR

01:21 - 12.840 THE GRANITE IN BEFORE THE

01:21 - 14.750 WEEKEND WAS UP. THE FAN WAS

01:21 - 16.150 CONTACTING ARE TRYING TO BREAK

01:21 - 17.580 INTO HER HOUSE. SHE CALLED

01:21 - 19.500 THE POLICE. POLICE OFFICER

01:21 - 20.880 CALLED THE DEFENDANT LEFT A

01:21 - 22.840 VOICE MESSAGE. SINGERS A PFA

01:21 - 24.420 ORDER THEY'RE NOT CONTACT WITH

01:21 - 26.360 HIS VICTIM. ODDLY ENOUGH THE

01:21 - 27.530 DEFENDANT CALLED THE OFFICER

01:21 - 29.730 BACK. AND SAID HEY I GOT YOUR

01:21 - 31.320 MESSAGE, IT'S WHAT'S GOING ON

01:21 - 32.820 HE SAID THE SAME EXACT STOP

01:21 - 33.850 PERSON ADVISED HIM

01:21 - 35.380 PFA ORDER HAS BEEN ENTERED

01:21 - 36.690 AGAINST YOU DON'T HAVE CONTACT

01:21 - 38.080 WITH THE VICTIM. WE

01:21 - 40.200 DEFENDED DECIDED. HE WAS GOING

01:21 - 41.510 TO CARE MUCH ABOUT THAT

01:21 - 42.960 CONTINUE TO HAVE CONTACT WITH

01:21 - 43.700 HER CONTINUES TO

01:21 - 45.360 THREATEN HER WHEN HE FINALLY

01:21 - 46.850 RECEIVED THE WRITTEN ORDER HE

01:21 - 48.930 THEN CEASES CONTACT AND

01:21 - 50.150 HE WAS CHARGED WITH AND

01:21 - 51.270 CONVICTED OF A

01:21 - 53.770 INDIRECT CONTEMPT AND HE ARGUED

01:21 - 54.550 ON APPEAL

01:21 - 56.820 THAT NOTICE WAS AN ATTIC WITH

01:21 - 57.950 BECAUSE HE HADN'T RECEIVED THE

01:21 - 59.000 WRITTEN ORDER YET

01:21 - 00.430 WHEN THE SUPERIOR COURT GAVE

01:22 - 01.860 THEM BIG KNOWLEDGE THAT THAT

01:22 - 03.370 THAT WAS A MATTER OF FACT THEY

01:22 - 04.810 GAVE HIM AN A FOR CREATIVITY

01:22 - 06.190 WITH THAT ARGUMENT THAT

01:22 - 08.350 FOR EXECUTION BECAUSE THEY SAY

01:22 - 09.340 YOU'RE DISREGARDING THE FACT

01:22 - 10.220 THAT YOU SPOKE TO A POLICE

01:22 - 13.240 OFFICER. IN THE COURT THERE.

01:22 - 14.890 THEY CAN ALWAYS THAT YOU KNOW

01:22 - 16.300 THE WHOLE PURPOSE OF THE PFA IS

01:22 - 17.570 TO MAKE SURE THAT THE VICTIM

01:22 - 18.830 DOESN'T SUFFER.

01:22 - 23.850 AND THEY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THERE

01:22 - 25.090 CAN BE EXTRAORDINARY

01:22 - 27.740 CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE PERSONAL

01:22 - 29.150 SERVICE CAN BE AVOIDED.

01:22 - 31.720 BUT THE COURT WAS MINDFUL AND

01:22 - 33.120 IT SPECIFICALLY REFERENCE

01:22 - 35.350 STATUTES IN THE PFA ACT THAT

01:22 - 36.590 REQUIRES THE POLICE TO BE

01:22 - 38.700 NOTIFIED. AND BECAUSE IN THIS

01:22 - 39.300 CASE,

01:22 - 41.400 AN OFFICER WAS THE INDIVIDUAL

01:22 - 42.780 WHO PROVIDED THAT CONSTRUCTIVE

01:22 - 44.260 NOTICE THEY UPHELD HIS

01:22 - 46.590 CONVICTION. AND

01:22 - 48.620 NEXT CASE OBVIOUSLY

01:22 - 50.640 WAS MINE BECOME VERSUS WILSON

01:22 - 51.790 WHICH CAME OUT THAT SPIRIT

01:22 - 52.930 COURT DECISION IT'S AN

01:22 - 55.090 UNPUBLISHED BUT IT IS FALLS

01:22 - 56.180 WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK IT CAN BE

01:22 - 58.120 CITED FOR PERSUASIVE VALUE AND

01:22 - 00.280 THAT PARTICULAR CASE. THAT FAN

01:23 - 02.180 WAS INCARCERATED AT THE TIME OF

01:23 - 03.840 THE FINAL PFA HEARING. SO HE

01:23 - 05.470 WASN'T TRANSPORTED OVER AND

01:23 - 06.230 THEY HELD A HEARING IN HIS

01:23 - 08.940 ABSENCE. I ULTIMATELY FINAL PFA

01:23 - 10.490 ORDER WAS ENTERED, BUT WAS

01:23 - 11.480 NEVER SERVED ON HIM.

01:23 - 14.180 BUT MORE CRITICALLY NOBODY

01:23 - 16.150 BOTHERED EVEN TRY TO ARE WE

01:23 - 17.830 LEARNING ABOUT THIS PERIOD WERE

01:23 - 19.570 AND I GOT A TRUCK WHILE THIS

01:23 - 20.740 WAS DURING THE TRANSCRIPT THEY

01:23 - 22.160 ACTUALLY SERVE CAN A COFFEE

01:23 - 24.750 ORDER AT HIS TRIAL FOR INDIRECT

01:23 - 25.520 CRIMINAL CONTEMPT.

01:23 - 29.210 IN THAT PARTICULAR MATTER.

01:23 - 32.270 PEOPLE'S UNFORCIBLE WHETHER OR

01:23 - 34.650 NOT IT SPENCER. BUT YOU

01:23 - 35.900 CAN'T CONVICT SOMEBODY OF

01:23 - 37.890 VIOLATING IT WHEN HE'S NEVER

01:23 - 39.110 BEEN INFORMED ABOUT THE ORDER

01:23 - 41.340 ITSELF BUT THERE'S LANGUAGE IN

01:23 - 42.760 THE STATUTE THAT REQUIRES

01:23 - 44.100 SERVICE ON THE FINAL ORDER.

01:23 - 46.940 IF THE LANGUAGE HAS A COPY OF

01:23 - 48.740 AN ORDER UNDER THIS CHAPTER

01:23 - 49.850 SHALL BE ISSUED TO THE

01:23 - 54.340 AS I READ THE PFA ACTORS NUMBER

01:23 - 55.560 THE FIRST OF MANY DIFFERENT

01:23 - 56.320 PROVISIONS HERE.

01:23 - 58.590 THE CAPE THAT THE PROVISION

01:23 - 00.870 THAT CITED PUT THE 61 O 6.

01:24 - 02.950 THAT'S TITLE CAN COMMENCEMENT

01:24 - 03.600 OF PROCEEDINGS

01:24 - 04.600 WHICH WOULD WHICH IS

01:24 - 05.730 APPROPRIATE IN THAT CASE

01:24 - 07.000 BECAUSE OF THE TEMPORARY WERE

01:24 - 09.570 SO HE HE WAS SERVED WITH THE

01:24 - 12.810 TEMPORARY PFA WITH A COPY OF

01:24 - 14.750 THE HEARING NOTICE SO HE KNEW

01:24 - 16.830 THAT HE WAS GOING TO BE I'M

01:24 - 19.730 HAVING A HEARING ON THE PFA AND

01:24 - 21.950 THAT HE SHOULD ATTEND. AND HE

01:24 - 23.300 CHOSE NOT TO ATTEND.

01:24 - 26.680 WITH THAT I CAN WRAP I DON'T IF

01:24 - 28.210 I'M GOING TO AGREE WITH THAT.

01:24 - 29.880 >>WILLINGNESS. AND I SAY THAT

01:24 - 31.020 BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING IN THE

01:24 - 32.740 RECORDS IS WHY MY CLIENT WHAT

01:24 - 34.160 HE DOES IN THE TOWN AND

01:24 - 37.020 THERE'S NO PROVISION IN THE

01:24 - 38.750 STATUTE FOR SERVICE OF THE

01:24 - 39.540 FINAL ORDER.

01:24 - 40.790 >>JUST ISSUANCE.

01:24 - 44.740 WELL AS IVORY 61 OVERNIGHT.

01:24 - 49.150 GIVE ME ONE THAT I FIND IT.

01:24 - 53.070 >>61 AND

01:24 - 55.450 SPEAKS TO ITS THE TITLE THAT

01:24 - 57.210 PROBATION IS SERVICE OF ORDERS.

01:24 - 59.870 >>SOME SECTIONS OF A COP EVEN

01:24 - 01.860 ORDER. UNDER THIS CHAPTER SHALL

01:25 - 03.110 BE ISSUED TO THE POINT THAT THE

01:25 - 03.900 DEFENDANT AND THE

01:25 - 05.380 POLICE DEPARTMENT WITH

01:25 - 07.130 APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION TO

01:25 - 07.680 ENFORCE

01:25 - 09.280 THE ORDER. WE'RE AGREEMENT IN

01:25 - 10.400 ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS

01:25 - 12.140 OF THIS CHAPTER OR AS ORDERED

01:25 - 12.920 BY THE COURT FOR

01:25 - 14.860 HEARING OFFICER AND A LOT OF

01:25 - 16.710 WAYS THAT DOES NEAR 6, ONE O 6,

01:25 - 19.110 >>WE ARE GOING TO BE

01:25 - 20.300 TRANSFERRED JUST AS MONDAY.

01:25 - 21.960 I COULD BE THE STRONGEST

01:25 - 22.850 POINTS. THE POLICE HAVE TO GET

01:25 - 24.430 INVOLVED HERE. THERE HAS TO BE

01:25 - 25.460 AN EFFORT TO INVOLVE THE

01:25 - 29.150 POLICE. IN MY CASE AS WELL WITH

01:25 - 30.620 WILSON WHICH AGAIN WAS MY CASE.

01:25 - 32.060 THERE'S NO WRECK THERE'S

01:25 - 33.070 NOTHING IN THE RECORD THAT

01:25 - 33.930 SUGGESTS THAT HAPPEN.

01:25 - 35.410 >>THE DISPUTE.

01:25 - 38.220 >>THAT YOUR CLIENT. THE

01:25 - 39.940 DEFENDANT IN THIS MATTER HAD

01:25 - 42.030 ACTUAL NOTICE, THE ISSUANCE OF

01:25 - 43.280 THE FINAL PFA ORDER.

01:25 - 45.990 THE COUSIN YELL DOWN

01:25 - 48.730 THE STEPS, THERE'S A PFA ORDER

01:25 - 49.290 YOU CAN'T

01:25 - 52.620 BE HERE AND IT AND BACK UP

01:25 - 54.220 PLEASE DON'T CALL THE POLICE

01:25 - 56.220 I'M LEAVING ANY TURNED OUT, I

01:25 - 56.950 THINK HER AND ALL THE

01:25 - 58.170 SURVEILLANCE CAMERAS UP IN THE

01:25 - 58.490 AIR.

01:26 - 03.030 UNDERSTOOD THE QUESTION

01:26 - 04.350 CORRECTLY THE QUESTION IS VIDEO

01:26 - 05.390 OF ACTUAL NOTICE OF THE WOULD

01:26 - 07.140 NOT BUT HE DID HAVE A QUIBBLE

01:26 - 08.470 ACKNOWLEDGED AND THANKED.

01:26 - 09.990 I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE

01:26 - 11.590 ULTIMATE ISSUE HERE IS THE

01:26 - 13.610 INDIVIDUAL THAT NOTIFY CAN I

01:26 - 15.350 USE AT AN AIR QUOTES WAS THE

01:26 - 17.310 VICTIM'S COUSIN, AND SHE SAID 3

01:26 - 19.810 CENSUS TO HIM QUOTE YOU CAN'T

01:26 - 21.500 BE HERE. YOU HAVE A TWO-YEAR

01:26 - 23.610 VIOLATION. YOU CAN'T BE HERE

01:26 - 25.670 AND WHAT THAT RESPONSE DON'T

01:26 - 26.510 CALL THE POLICE.

01:26 - 29.110 >>AND IT IS ACTUALLY TURNING UP

01:26 - 30.080 TURNING THE WAY OVER FOR

01:26 - 31.450 BALANCE AND THEN TAKING THE

01:26 - 33.210 BULL CAN BRING THE DOG BACK.

01:26 - 36.220 TAKE THAT IS CONSTRUCTIVE

01:26 - 37.720 NOTICE THAT HE KNEW HE WASN'T

01:26 - 38.760 SUPPOSED TO BE AN API

01:26 - 40.680 FOOTBALL GAME. I BETTER RETURN

01:26 - 42.600 BOUT WELL BECAUSE THAT PROOF I

01:26 - 44.050 WAS THERE I KEEP MY COOL

01:26 - 45.910 ADMITTEDLY THOSE ARE NOT GOOD

01:26 - 46.240 FACTS

01:26 - 48.970 FOR ME, I'VE GOT MY DOG, THE

01:26 - 51.190 DOG ISSUE IS AMBIGUOUS COME

01:26 - 52.700 BACK COME BACK TO MY INITIAL

01:26 - 53.850 QUESTION WHICH I THINK

01:26 - 55.440 EVERYTHING'S SOME CITY AREA.

01:26 - 57.090 >>WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT IT

01:26 - 59.320 HATCH MEANT THE JURISDICTION TO

01:26 - 01.000 SERVICE OF PROCESS WE'RE

01:27 - 02.430 TALKING ABOUT WHETHER HE HAD

01:27 - 04.040 ACTUAL NOTICE, HEAT,

01:27 - 05.270 WE JUST PUT THIS IN THE

01:27 - 06.730 VERNACULAR TO GET OUT OF THE

01:27 - 08.690 LEGAL FEES DID HE KNOW THAT WAS

01:27 - 10.770 A PFA ORDER AGAINST HIM AND IF

01:27 - 12.270 YOU CAN SEE IT ALL THE FACTS

01:27 - 14.460 THAT IF YOU SAID DON'T DON'T

01:27 - 15.980 HARBOR ESPECIALLY WELL FOR YOUR

01:27 - 18.340 CLIENT IS JUST TO STOP THE READ

01:27 - 19.980 THROUGH THEM TO ME HE HAD

01:27 - 21.440 ACTUAL NOTICE AND THEREFORE HE

01:27 - 23.370 DOESN'T HAVE A 14TH AMENDMENT

01:27 - 25.270 CLAIM OF LACK OF DUE PROCESS

01:27 - 27.350 AND BEING CONVICTED OF A CRIME

01:27 - 27.830 THAT I DIDN'T

01:27 - 32.680 I WAS. A RESTRAINT THAT YOU'VE

01:27 - 35.400 GOT NO SUBJECT. I'LL DO MY

01:27 - 37.270 BEST ANSWER A COUPLE DIFFERENT

01:27 - 38.140 QUESTIONS GOING ON THERE.

01:27 - 39.630 I DON'T BELIEVE HE HAD ACTUAL

01:27 - 40.420 NOTICE BECAUSE I AND HER

01:27 - 41.740 PRODUCTION IS ME HERE TO COPY

01:27 - 43.770 YOUR HAND. THE ISSUES THAT HE

01:27 - 45.490 AT SUFFICIENT CONSTRUCTIVE

01:27 - 47.410 NOTICE WITH HER JUST AS DOCTORS

01:27 - 48.890 THE POINTS THAT

01:27 - 50.490 YOU MADE THAT CERTAINLY WOULD

01:27 - 52.440 GO TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS

01:27 - 53.880 AN INTENT WAS ACTIONS WERE

01:27 - 55.950 POLICIAL BUT THE ISSUE TODAY IS

01:27 - 58.210 WHETHER THAT WAS $0.3 IS

01:27 - 00.200 PROVIDED BY THE COUSIN WHO

01:28 - 02.180 IS NOT A WAR ON FORCE OFFICER.

01:28 - 05.160 ARGUMENT YOU'RE AND CORRECT ME

01:28 - 06.410 IF I'M WRONG WITH YOUR ARGUMENT

01:28 - 08.510 IS BECAUSE LAW ENFORCEMENT DID

01:28 - 08.860 NOT.

01:28 - 13.220 >>IT'S NOT SUFFICIENT NOTICE IS

01:28 - 14.030 THAT YOUR POSITION.

01:28 - 15.890 >>MY POSITION IS THAT BECAUSE

01:28 - 17.990 LAW ENFORCEMENT NEITHER SERVE

01:28 - 20.190 HIM WITH AN ACTUAL NOTICE WERE

01:28 - 22.570 BOTHERED TO EVEN. WE'RE

01:28 - 23.870 ACTIVELY NOTIFIED OF THIS.

01:28 - 25.830 >>SAY IN THE STATUTE THAT THEY

01:28 - 28.430 NEED TO OR IT'S IT'S IT'S

01:28 - 30.400 IT THEY'RE EMPOWERED WITH

01:28 - 32.770 THAT KNOWLEDGE THE 61 O 9 ONLY

01:28 - 33.990 SAYS THAT THEY SHOULD BE

01:28 - 36.590 NOTIFIED THAT DIDN'T EXIST NOT

01:28 - 37.170 THAT IT SHOULD

01:28 - 40.650 BE FOR AS WE DO OTHER FAMILY

01:28 - 41.830 COURT TYPE OF SERVICE OF

01:28 - 45.910 PROCESS. REACH 60 61 TONIGHT.

01:28 - 48.690 A COPY OF THE ORDER AND THE

01:28 - 50.350 CHAPTER SHALL BE ISSUED FOR THE

01:28 - 51.970 PLAINTIFF AND THE DEFENDANT.

01:28 - 54.240 >>AND THE POLICE DEPARTMENT

01:28 - 55.610 WITH APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION

01:28 - 57.360 FOR FOREST I CAN SAY ANYTHING

01:28 - 00.200 ABOUT I'M TRYING TO FOLLOW YOUR

01:29 - 00.740 LOGIC

01:29 - 03.480 THAT CAUSE IT YELLING DOWN GET

01:29 - 04.700 OUT YOU'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE

01:29 - 05.940 HERE AND THE RESPONSE DON'T

01:29 - 07.160 CALL THE COPS FROM LEAVING.

01:29 - 09.880 BUT IN THE WAY I TURN OFF THE

01:29 - 10.900 CAMERAS PICK WITH THE

01:29 - 12.210 SURVEILLANCE CAMERA IS NOT

01:29 - 13.790 CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE THAT HE

01:29 - 15.870 KNEW THE ORDER WAS THAT PRESENT

01:29 - 16.960 AND THAT HE SHOULD NOT BE

01:29 - 19.370 THERE. I READ THE LANGUAGE WITH

01:29 - 20.740 APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION

01:29 - 21.610 ENFORCE THE ORDER.

01:29 - 22.800 >>BECAUSE THIS IS UNDER THE

01:29 - 24.920 SERVICE OF ORDERS PRO VISION.

01:29 - 26.290 THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT IT MEANS.

01:29 - 28.370 THEY ARE DUTY-BOUND TO

01:29 - 30.040 EFFECTUATE SERVICE. IT

01:29 - 32.340 CAN BE, I'M SORRY ROUTE 61 ON

01:29 - 34.080 YOUR THING THIS 61 AND IT IS

01:29 - 36.180 THE PORTION OF THE BOUT SHARE

01:29 - 38.360 WITH ME. THE EXACT LANGUAGE.

01:29 - 39.750 >>OTHER THAN THEY BEING

01:29 - 40.970 NOTIFIED TELL ME WHERE THEY ARE

01:29 - 43.600 DUTY BOUND TO SERVE IT. NOT

01:29 - 44.330 RECEIVE IT.

01:29 - 46.420 I READ THE LANGUAGE WITH

01:29 - 47.750 APPROPRIATE JURISDICTION OF

01:29 - 48.510 FORCE THE ORDER.

01:29 - 51.370 >>AS THAT'S THEIR OBLIGATION TO

01:29 - 52.760 CARRY IT OUT THE OTHER

01:29 - 54.390 CONSTRUCTIVELY ARE ACTUALLY.

01:29 - 57.030 MISTER MACKEY WHAT DO YOU DO

01:29 - 59.560 >>WITH 61 O 6 G

01:29 - 01.270 LAST SENTENCE THEY'RE HERE TO

01:30 - 02.840 SERVE SO NOT HAVE ANY EFFECT ON

01:30 - 04.750 THE BALLOT ORDER AGREE WITH

01:30 - 05.720 THAT. I MEAN WHETHER

01:30 - 07.240 NOT THE DEFENDANT ACTUALLY SEES

01:30 - 08.740 IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT ORDER IS

01:30 - 10.040 NOT ENFORCEABLE I MEAN

01:30 - 11.870 OBVIOUSLY THAT DEFENDANT TO THE

01:30 - 13.420 SUBJECT OR IS STILL GOING TO BE

01:30 - 14.220 BOUND BY THE TERMS AND

01:30 - 15.660 CONDITIONS OF IT IF IT'S TO

01:30 - 17.060 HAVE NO CONTACT LIMITED

01:30 - 18.610 CONTACT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S

01:30 - 20.950 THE ISSUE WE DO KNOW THAT KRIM

01:30 - 22.790 WITH A CRIME. WE'RE INDIVIDUALS

01:30 - 24.020 CONVICTED OF SOMETHING.

01:30 - 26.260 SO I GUESS IN SOME WAYS ARE

01:30 - 27.650 APPLES AND ORANGES TO A DEGREE

01:30 - 28.540 THOUGH SO YOU WOULD

01:30 - 30.300 CHARACTERIZE IT IS CONSTRUCTIVE

01:30 - 31.720 NOTICE A NEW AD SAYING GET

01:30 - 32.870 CONSTRUCT THE MATTER IS THAT

01:30 - 34.590 FAIR A CRACK IN THE REASON I

01:30 - 36.230 SAY THEY CAN GET CONSTRUCTED, I

01:30 - 37.630 JUST TRY TO MAKE SURE WE KNOW

01:30 - 39.200 THE STANCE WE UNDERSTAND THE

01:30 - 39.940 REASON HE DIDN'T GET

01:30 - 41.130 CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IS THAT

01:30 - 42.680 WASN'T GIVEN BY LAW ENFORCEMENT

01:30 - 44.450 OR SOMEBODY DESIGNATED BY THE

01:30 - 45.990 COURT TO PROVIDE THAT SOMEBODY

01:30 - 48.010 IS SO SO MAYBE WE'D

01:30 - 50.810 BE MAKING. THE NEW LAW OR A NEW

01:30 - 51.630 INTERPRETATION OF

01:30 - 54.490 THE LAW THAT 1, 2 PFA ISSUES

01:30 - 56.030 MUST BE SERVED BY A POLICE

01:30 - 57.570 OFFICER SOMEBODY DESIGNATED BY

01:30 - 58.750 THE COURT WHERE

01:30 - 01.030 THEY WERE OR OR WHATEVER NOTICE

01:31 - 03.270 CONSTRUCTIVE THEORETICAL IS IN

01:31 - 03.890 EFFECT.

01:31 - 06.090 I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT I DON'T

01:31 - 07.280 KNOW IF I WANT TO SEE NEW LAW I

01:31 - 08.180 MEAN ULTIMATELY I THINK THERE'S

01:31 - 08.550 THAT.

01:31 - 10.680 THERE'S SOMETHING LEFT UNSAID

01:31 - 12.940 HERE TO A DEGREE IS SUPPOSED TO

01:31 - 14.320 GIVE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT THIS

01:31 - 15.850 ORDER BUT THAT'S AND THAT'S

01:31 - 17.030 WHAT I WANTED TO ASK

01:31 - 18.610 YOU ABOUT PRAGMATICALLY HOW

01:31 - 20.860 THIS WORKED FOR ME AS I READ 61

01:31 - 23.330 O WHICH DEALS WITH THE

01:31 - 24.880 COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS.

01:31 - 25.220 YES.

01:31 - 26.310 >>IT

01:31 - 28.050 SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT A

01:31 - 30.490 COURT IS TO A DOCK, A MEANS

01:31 - 33.490 OF SERVICE WHERE THE PLAINTIFF

01:31 - 37.290 A POLICE OFFICER HAS TO DO IT

01:31 - 39.740 BECAUSE IT WOULD BE UNSAFE AND

01:31 - 42.290 AN ADULT INDIVIDUAL TO MAKE

01:31 - 43.760 SURE BUS. OKAY, SO THAT'S THE

01:31 - 45.010 COMMENCEMENT OF PROCEEDINGS

01:31 - 45.500 CRACK.

01:31 - 47.950 THERE'S NOTHING IN THE

01:31 - 51.010 STATUTE THAT AT THAT PROVIDES

01:31 - 53.370 WHAT HAPPENS AFTER THE COURT

01:31 - 57.450 ENTERS A FINAL P F A AND 2,

01:31 - 58.390 HOW.

01:31 - 01.630 THE DEFENDANT IS GOING TO BE

01:32 - 04.190 GIVEN NOTICE FAIR OR OTHERWISE.

01:32 - 06.190 IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT

01:32 - 07.990 CORRECTLY SO A COURT IN A FEW

01:32 - 10.800 OF PFA BANG THE GAVEL GET OFF

01:32 - 12.980 THE BENCH AND NOBODY KNOWS

01:32 - 14.460 WHO'S GOING TO GIVE DEFENDANT

01:32 - 16.120 NOTICE OF THE ENTRANCE OF THE

01:32 - 17.430 PSA P EFFECT.

01:32 - 20.270 GREAT WHITE TO

01:32 - 22.380 THAT EXTENT WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE

01:32 - 23.650 WHEN I LOOK AT THE STATUE FOR

01:32 - 24.420 AN ANSWER TO THAT

01:32 - 27.420 I APOLOGIZE TO THAT I WOULD

01:32 - 28.850 AGREE WITH YOU UNFORTUNATELY

01:32 - 31.730 FEATURE COUNCIL PROVIDE THE

01:32 - 33.050 ANSWER. I DON'T

01:32 - 36.500 WHEN PROVIDING THAT THE PAPERS

01:32 - 38.040 MAY BE SERVED BY THE SHERIFF OR

01:32 - 39.060 A COMPETENT ADULT.

01:32 - 41.170 >>THE TEEN 30.4.

01:32 - 48.060 ISN'T THE ISSUE.

01:32 - 50.900 NOT WHETHER HE KNEW HE

01:32 - 52.650 WASN'T SUPPOSED TO BE THERE BUT

01:32 - 54.030 WHETHER GIVEN THIS IS

01:32 - 56.550 A CRIME WHETHER THE ACTUAL

01:32 - 58.900 NOTICE OF THE ORDER. WE ARE

01:32 - 59.950 JUST 2 DIFFERENT THINGS.

01:33 - 04.010 >>THEY ARE 2 DIFFERENT THINGS I

01:33 - 05.350 MEAN I CAN AGREE AND I DON'T

01:33 - 05.720 THIS.

01:33 - 08.560 WITH REGARD TO THE I THINK THIS

01:33 - 09.940 IS MAYBE WHERE THE EMPHASIS

01:33 - 10.600 NEEDS TO COME FROM TO

01:33 - 12.160 A DEGREE. WONDER IF

01:33 - 14.140 EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES

01:33 - 15.400 THAT PERSONAL SERVICE CAN BE

01:33 - 17.210 AVOIDED THERE'S NOTHING IN THIS

01:33 - 19.160 RECORD. IT SUGGEST. THERE WERE

01:33 - 20.360 EXTRAORDINARY CIRCUMSTANCES.

01:33 - 23.200 WE WERE SIMPLY WAS NEVER ISSUED

01:33 - 23.590 TO HIM.

01:33 - 27.450 WHAT HAVE THE SAME FOR USES

01:33 - 28.070 THAT ACTUALLY

01:33 - 30.010 IT'S JUST A ACTUAL NOTICE OF

01:33 - 31.160 CONSTRUCTING THE CORRECT YOU

01:33 - 32.440 SAYING THAT THE ONLY WAY YOU

01:33 - 33.540 CAN GET AN INDIRECT CRIMINAL

01:33 - 34.100 CONTEMPT

01:33 - 37.320 A CONVICTION ON A PFA ORDER IS

01:33 - 38.800 IF THE DEFENDANT HAD ACTUAL

01:33 - 40.620 NOTICE NOW I THINK THAT SO

01:33 - 41.730 LET'S PUT ACTUAL NOTICE I

01:33 - 42.510 BECAUSE I THINK IT'S PRETTY

01:33 - 43.520 MUCH TO BE A LADY THAT YOUR

01:33 - 44.960 CLIENT DID NOT RECEIVE ACTUAL.

01:33 - 46.520 >>YES, YOU'RE SO THEN WE TURN

01:33 - 48.290 TO CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IS IT

01:33 - 50.270 YOUR POSITION THAT THE ONLY WAY

01:33 - 51.810 A DEFENDANT CAN HAVE

01:33 - 54.400 CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IS IF LAW

01:33 - 56.560 ENFORCEMENT EVEN IF THEY DON'T

01:33 - 58.170 FORMALLY SERVED WITH THE ORDER

01:33 - 00.490 SOMEHOW INFORM 7 EITHER HE

01:34 - 01.690 REACHED OUT OR THEY REACHED OUT

01:34 - 03.960 TO HIM THAT THAT YOU HAVE A PFA

01:34 - 05.300 AGAINST YOU IS THAT THE ONLY

01:34 - 06.270 WAY YOU CAN GET CONSTRUCTIVE

01:34 - 06.650 NOTICE.

01:34 - 09.280 I WANT TO SAY THE ONLY WAY IT

01:34 - 10.340 REASONS IT WAS A CASE WAS

01:34 - 12.670 REFERRED TO BY THE IT WAS THE

01:34 - 13.120 CAP AND A

01:34 - 14.970 CAPITAL CASE AND THAT

01:34 - 15.860 PARTICULAR STATEMENT THEY WERE

01:34 - 17.740 INTERPRETING AN AGGRAVATED

01:34 - 19.240 GUARDED DEATH PENALTY. IT

01:34 - 20.690 INVOLVED A VIOLATION OF PFA

01:34 - 22.530 ORDER AND IN THAT PARTICULAR

01:34 - 23.320 CASE.

01:34 - 26.090 THE DEFENDANT TOOK AFFIRMATIVE

01:34 - 27.790 STEPS TO AVOID BEING SERVED.

01:34 - 30.340 HE ALSO ADMITTED THAT THE

01:34 - 31.970 VICTIM PERSONALLY TOLD HIM

01:34 - 34.160 ABOUT THE PFA AND THE VICTIM TO

01:34 - 35.630 DEFEND THE CASE ACTUALLY SPOKE

01:34 - 37.850 TO REMEMBER THE PFA OFFICE.

01:34 - 39.780 AGAIN TALKING ABOUT THE PFA

01:34 - 41.080 MATTER. SO I DON'T THINK IT'S

01:34 - 43.180 NECESSARY ONLY LIMITED TO THE

01:34 - 44.320 POLICE BUT I WOULD VENTURE TO

01:34 - 46.370 SAY THAT THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

01:34 - 49.000 QUITE A PLOY TO PAY 5 5TH

01:34 - 49.970 ITSELF WILL BE SOMEBODY WOULD

01:34 - 51.100 BE TESTING BY THE COURT TO

01:34 - 52.760 PROVIDE THAT NOTICE AND MAYBE

01:34 - 54.310 EVEN THE VICTIM HIMSELF, IT

01:34 - 56.420 MADE HIM LEAVE IT A LIAR OR 5

01:34 - 58.000 THINGS ARE THE QUESTION THAT WE

01:34 - 01.620 TOOK SEEMS TO SUGGEST WITH THAT

01:35 - 02.430 IT

01:35 - 04.140 THAT IT'S PROVIDED BY LAW

01:35 - 05.910 ENFORCEMENT OR SOMEONE CHARGED

01:35 - 07.210 WITH ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDER

01:35 - 08.610 OR FORGET ABOUT IT YOU CAN HAVE

01:35 - 09.720 CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE ANY OTHER

01:35 - 09.980 WAY.

01:35 - 12.750 I WOULDN'T DISAGREE WITH THAT

01:35 - 13.710 AND I THINK BECAUSE YOU WANT

01:35 - 15.080 THESE ORDERS TO BE BEYOND

01:35 - 16.390 REPROACH YOU WANT THEM TO BE

01:35 - 18.620 ACCURATE. I GUESS I'M TRYING.

01:35 - 19.460 I'M TRYING UNDERSTAND WHAT

01:35 - 21.000 WE'RE WHAT WATER ISSUE IS IN

01:35 - 22.290 FRONT OF US BECAUSE IT IT SEEMS

01:35 - 23.140 TO ME IF IF THE

01:35 - 24.750 ISSUE IS THE ONLY WAY YOU CAN

01:35 - 26.240 GET ACTUAL NOTICES FROM LAW

01:35 - 27.620 ENFORCEMENT OR SOMEONE DOES

01:35 - 28.930 NEED TO ENFORCE THE ORDER I'M

01:35 - 30.050 NOT SURE I LIKE THAT

01:35 - 32.230 BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THE FACTS

01:35 - 32.300 IN

01:35 - 34.650 THIS CASE. AS YOU POINTED OUT

01:35 - 35.750 IS UNFAVORABLE AS THEY ARE TO

01:35 - 37.330 YOUR CLIENT SUGGEST THAT HE DID

01:35 - 39.300 HAVE CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE IN

01:35 - 41.410 TOTALITY KNEW THERE WAS A

01:35 - 43.420 TEMPORARY PFA KNEW THERE WAS A

01:35 - 44.840 HEARING DID NOT GO TO THE

01:35 - 46.160 HEARING CERTAINLY DIDN'T REACH

01:35 - 47.260 OUT TO FIND OUT WHAT HAPPENED

01:35 - 48.810 IN THE HEARING WENT

01:35 - 50.040 TO THE HOUSE TURNED THE VIDEO

01:35 - 52.480 CAMERAS UP. I'M NOT SURE I GIVE

01:35 - 53.770 A LOT OF CREDENCE TO THE

01:35 - 55.210 COUSIN'S NOTIFICATION BECAUSE

01:35 - 56.480 BY THAT TIME ARGUABLY WAS IN

01:35 - 58.310 VIOLATION OF THE PFA SO WAS

01:35 - 59.780 TOLD AFTER HE WAS VIOLATING IT

01:35 - 00.810 THAT HE WAS VIOLATING IT.

01:36 - 02.730 BUT BUT ALL OF THAT THE

01:36 - 04.150 TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES

01:36 - 06.490 SUGGESTED. THAT THAT

01:36 - 08.210 AT LEAST FINDER OF FACT COULD

01:36 - 09.950 SAY YEAH. HE KNEW HE WASN'T

01:36 - 10.920 SUPPOSED TO BE THERE HE KNEW

01:36 - 13.100 THAT THE PFA WAS IN PLACE AND

01:36 - 14.070 WE'RE GOING TO FIND HIM GUILTY

01:36 - 15.790 OF CRIMINAL INDIRECT IMPACT.

01:36 - 19.500 I APPRECIATE THAT MY CLIENTS.

01:36 - 21.380 ACTIONS AT THE

01:36 - 22.750 OBVIOUSLY ON PARTICULARLY

01:36 - 24.100 FAVORABLE BUT BUT I THINK IN A

01:36 - 25.480 WAY THE ISSUES BEING LOST BY

01:36 - 26.140 FOCUSING ON

01:36 - 28.090 THOSE ISSUES. WHAT ABOUT $0.3

01:36 - 30.270 NOTICE SO NO I DON'T I DON'T I

01:36 - 31.300 DON'T INCREASE THAT BECAUSE BY

01:36 - 32.060 THAT TIME HE WAS ALREADY IN

01:36 - 33.480 VIOLATION OF THE PM RIGHT.

01:36 - 35.370 THAT'S LIKE YOU KNOW SOMEBODY

01:36 - 36.320 IN THE MIDDLE OF BANK ROBBERY

01:36 - 37.530 AND SAY HEY YOU SHOULD ROB A

01:36 - 40.200 BANK IT'S A LEGAL. IT IS MY

01:36 - 41.850 ISSUE IS YOU'RE THE STATEMENT

01:36 - 43.140 QUESTION THAT WE TOOK

01:36 - 44.930 SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT WE HAVE A

01:36 - 47.000 BINARY CHOICE. CONSTRUCTIVE

01:36 - 48.100 NOTICE EITHER HAS TO BE

01:36 - 51.540 PROVIDED BY LAW ENFORCEMENT OR

01:36 - 54.360 SOME OTHER WAY. AND AND I'M

01:36 - 56.250 TRYING TO I IT SEEMS TO ME THAT

01:36 - 57.520 THE ANSWER HAS TO BE SOME OTHER

01:36 - 59.110 WAY. THERE'S NO THERE'S NO

01:36 - 01.390 CLEAR DEFINED STATEMENT IN THE

01:37 - 02.300 STATUTE

01:37 - 06.110 THAT ALLOWS. THE AVOIDANCE OF

01:37 - 08.450 ACTUAL KNOWLEDGE TO YOU KNOW IN

01:37 - 10.100 DEFERENCE TO SOME KIND OF

01:37 - 11.530 CONVERSATION WITH LAW

01:37 - 12.120 ENFORCEMENT.

01:37 - 13.890 I THINK THAT HAS TO BE THE

01:37 - 15.250 ANSWER IS I READ THAT THE PFA

01:37 - 15.750 ACTORS

01:37 - 17.810 JUST MULTIPLE, SEPARATE

01:37 - 19.340 PROVISIONS ABOUT THE VALUE OF

01:37 - 20.820 INVOLVING THE POLICE IN

01:37 - 22.660 THESE MATTERS. IT'S THE BEST

01:37 - 23.890 AND PERHAPS THE ONLY WAY TO

01:37 - 25.150 MAKE SURE THAT WHEN NOTICE IS

01:37 - 27.000 PROVIDED IT'S ACCURATE. IT'S

01:37 - 29.290 BEYOND REPROACH. I

01:37 - 32.120 READ THESE ONE RECENT SURGES

01:37 - 34.170 ERNIE. AND ANY REASON.

01:37 - 37.020 >>WHY WE CAN'T VIEW AS A COURT.

01:37 - 40.200 THE TEMPORARY PFA WHICH WAS

01:37 - 42.470 SERVED ON YOUR CLIENT, CORRECT

01:37 - 44.920 WHY CAN'T WE USE THAT AS

01:37 - 46.940 CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE THAT YOUR

01:37 - 48.970 CLIENT WAS ON NOTICE. BUT HE

01:37 - 50.860 WAS UNDER THE RIGORS OF A PFA

01:37 - 51.290 ORDER.

01:37 - 54.500 PRONGS TO

01:37 - 55.670 FIRST.

01:37 - 56.870 >>COULD BE CONVICTED OF

01:37 - 57.940 INDIRECT KIND OF CONTENT YOU

01:37 - 00.350 HAVE TO THE SPECIFIC OR DECREE.

01:38 - 02.000 IN QUESTION. SO

01:38 - 03.980 IN THIS CASES, THE FINAL PFA

01:38 - 05.330 NOT ANYTHING BEFORE THAT WOULD

01:38 - 06.360 BE THE TEMPORARY PFA.

01:38 - 18.690 >>THE CONVICTED OF

01:38 - 21.250 THE ICC FOR VIOLATING A

01:38 - 23.490 TEMPORARY PFA. YES.

01:38 - 25.180 >>AND THIS COULD PUT IT WOULD

01:38 - 28.950 BE LOGICAL TO HAVE NOTICE AVE A

01:38 - 29.760 P P F

01:38 - 32.180 A HEARING INTENTIONALLY FAILED

01:38 - 33.680 TO APPEAR KNOWING

01:38 - 36.430 A FINAL ORDER WOULD BE ENTERED

01:38 - 37.250 AGAINST YOU AND

01:38 - 38.860 THAT FRIENDSHIP SUCH THAT

01:38 - 41.110 YOU'RE AWARE THAT AN ORDER THAT

01:38 - 42.250 CONSTRUCTIVE.

01:38 - 47.110 >>I'M NOT AWARE OF BEING A LAW

01:38 - 48.380 THAT SAYS IF YOU FAIL TO SHOW

01:38 - 49.880 UP AT YOUR FINAL PFA HEARING.

01:38 - 52.020 IT IS AUTOMATICALLY EXTENDED.

01:38 - 57.740 >>OR BE WHETHER THE JUDGE

01:38 - 00.000 CALLED IN SICK OR SEE WHETHER

01:39 - 01.530 NOTHING HAPPENING OR THE

01:39 - 05.000 WHATEVER. THERE I MEAN

01:39 - 06.950 I JUST AGAIN

01:39 - 09.480 I THINK THERE'S A DISTINCTION.

01:39 - 13.350 I'M SUGGESTING THE POSSIBILITY

01:39 - 14.460 OF A DISTINCTION.

01:39 - 18.220 WHERE HE KNEW HE WASN'T BEING A

01:39 - 19.140 GOOD CITIZEN.

01:39 - 21.990 >>ON THE ONE HAND AND ON THE

01:39 - 25.000 OTHER HAVING NOTICE ALL OF

01:39 - 25.280 THEM.

01:39 - 27.470 OF THE ORDER SUCH THAT YOU

01:39 - 28.830 COULD BE EXPOSED TO CONVICTION

01:39 - 28.920 OF

01:39 - 29.420 A CRIME.

01:39 - 30.870 >>EXCEPT HE'S A LITERAL

01:39 - 32.510 APPLICATION OF THE PFA IN

01:39 - 35.020 FAMILY LAW FOR THE PRESERVATION

01:39 - 37.490 OF THE PROTECTION OF SOMEONE

01:39 - 38.560 WHO IS RELATED

01:39 - 40.480 OR HAT IN A RELATIONSHIP WITH

01:39 - 41.850 WE KNOW THAT OR AT LEAST ANYONE

01:39 - 43.100 IS PRACTICED FAMILY LAW.

01:39 - 45.630 WE KNOW THAT MISTER WE'RE ABOUT

01:39 - 46.030 DONE.

01:39 - 47.810 >>I WANT TO CORRECT ONE THING

01:39 - 49.380 I'M SURE YOU DID NOT.

01:39 - 51.760 >>I MEAN TO SAY THAT.

01:39 - 53.950 >>THE CHARGE IS A VIOLATION OF

01:39 - 56.340 THE PSA WITH NOT FROM THE TRIP

01:39 - 58.690 TO THE HOUSE WHEN THE COUSIN

01:39 - 00.510 YELLED DOWN THE STREET. IT WAS

01:40 - 02.430 FROM THE SUBSEQUENT TRIP TO THE

01:40 - 03.630 HOUSE TO RETURN

01:40 - 06.430 THE DOG. AFTER RIYADH ACTUAL

01:40 - 08.040 NOTICE FROM THE COUSIN YELLING

01:40 - 09.490 DOUBT AND ALL THE INFERENCE IS

01:40 - 11.200 EVERYBODY'S RAISED. AND THAT'S

01:40 - 12.090 WHEN THE POLICE WENT OUT AND

01:40 - 13.120 ARRESTED HIM ISN'T THAT

01:40 - 13.540 CORRECT.

01:40 - 18.170 >>READ THE RECORD I I DIDN'T

01:40 - 20.200 REALLY PARSE OUT THE THE

01:40 - 22.490 ACTIONS OF MY CLIENT, BUT THE

01:40 - 24.490 ISSUE AGAIN IS NOTICE AND

01:40 - 26.450 IT ULTIMATELY A

01:40 - 28.360 3 SENTENCE NOTICE IF YOU WILL

01:40 - 30.210 IN AIR QUOTES AND I GOT MY LAST

01:40 - 31.160 QUESTION PROBLEM FOR

01:40 - 34.290 THE COURT. IN YOUR IT CRAZY

01:40 - 35.760 ALLERGY THE ISSUE YOU SAID THE

01:40 - 36.110 COURT

01:40 - 37.870 MISINTERPRETED PADILLA.

01:40 - 39.750 >>WE GET THIS PIER COURT CASE

01:40 - 40.750 NOT BINDING ON US, BUT

01:40 - 41.290 PERSUASIVE

01:40 - 43.330 VALUE CORRECT, AND AND IT

01:40 - 45.390 SEEMED TO ME WITH PREVIOUS SAID

01:40 - 47.610 IF IF THE QUOTE IN A SUPERIOR

01:40 - 49.290 COURT CASE, THE PAIN IN THIS

01:40 - 49.540 CASE

01:40 - 51.350 IS ACCURATE. HE'S APPELLANTS

01:40 - 53.060 ACTUAL RECEIPT OF FINAL PFA

01:40 - 54.600 ORDER IS NOT THE SOLE MEANS BY

01:40 - 55.740 WHICH TO CALL WHAT COULD PROVE

01:40 - 58.620 NOTICED RATHER YOU'RE THERE.

01:40 - 00.770 THERE MUST WE MUST BE EITHER

01:41 - 02.370 ACTUAL NOTICE A CONSTRUCTIVE

01:41 - 03.900 EQUIVALENT HAS OCCURRED HERE TO

01:41 - 06.090 SEE PADILLA. SO ARE YOU TRYING

01:41 - 07.450 TO CLARIFY PADILLA OR TO

01:41 - 10.020 OVERRULE IT. CLARIFY I DON'T

01:41 - 11.430 THINK IT I THINK THE

01:41 - 12.880 IS CORRECT IN SO FAR AS THE

01:41 - 14.420 EMPHASIZED THE VALUE NEED OF

01:41 - 15.990 LAW ENFORCEMENT TO PROVIDE THAT

01:41 - 17.070 CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE.

01:41 - 18.060 >>WHEN

01:41 - 19.630 THERE ARE EXTRAORDINARY

01:41 - 21.380 CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD AVOID

01:41 - 22.910 PERSONAL SERVICE. AND YOU

01:41 - 24.040 JUST DON'T HAVE THAT ONE MORE

01:41 - 26.020 TIME AGAINST A GUESS I GUESS WE

01:41 - 27.700 GOT IT AND WOULD BE DEAD HORSE.

01:41 - 31.190 >>IT YOU CAN YOU CAN SEE THAT

01:41 - 32.500 YOUR CLIENT ACTUALLY KNEW HE

01:41 - 34.220 HAD A PFA AGAINST THEM PREMISED

01:41 - 35.770 UPON THE UP AND DOWN YELLING

01:41 - 37.260 AND THAT DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE

01:41 - 38.220 IT DIDN'T COME FROM A LAW

01:41 - 39.910 ENFORCEMENT OFFICER OR SOMEBODY

01:41 - 41.740 THAT THE COURT SAID GOSAR.

01:41 - 45.080 BEAT A DEAD HORSE AND BE

01:41 - 46.720 ARGUMENTATIVE BUT I JUST DON'T

01:41 - 48.020 THINK WHAT SHE PROVIDED

01:41 - 49.550 ANNOUNCED ANYTHING ALONG THE

01:41 - 50.430 LINES OF SUFFICIENT

01:41 - 51.420 CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE.

01:41 - 52.600 >>WHAT I THINK WE'RE SEEING THE

01:41 - 52.850 SAME

01:41 - 54.800 THING. YES. SO BUT I DON'T MEAN

01:41 - 56.020 TO INTERRUPT YOU BUT YOU'RE

01:41 - 57.620 SAYING THAT'S INSUFFICIENT WHAT

01:41 - 58.090 YOU'RE SAYING

01:41 - 00.370 IS CONSISTENT. BUT DON'T REPORT

01:42 - 01.560 TO YOU ABOUT WHAT I THINK

01:42 - 02.450 YOU'RE SAYING I WANT TO MAKE

01:42 - 03.480 SURE I HAVE THIS RIGHT BECAUSE

01:42 - 05.880 I GOT TO GO VOTE IT IS FROM

01:42 - 08.310 A POLICE. OFFICER WHERE SOMEONE

01:42 - 09.780 APPOINTED BY THE COURT IS

01:42 - 11.630 SUFFICIENT NOTICE, CORRECT.

01:42 - 17.510 I MEAN YOU

01:42 - 22.550 >>BIZARRE WAS FIRED NOT ONLY

01:42 - 24.330 WE'VE GOT TO NOTICE AT THE

01:42 - 26.700 BORDER. BUT THAT I THINK

01:42 - 28.390 WEDNESDAY VIOLATING IT.

01:42 - 31.410 >>AS I READ THE CASE LIKE YES.

01:42 - 33.500 I DON'T KNOW I THINK FROM A

01:42 - 35.130 STATUTORY STANDPOINT THAT WOULD

01:42 - 36.380 GO QUITE THAT FAR.

01:42 - 41.180 WE'VE GOT AS I INTERPRET THE

01:42 - 43.580 CASES, YES. THANK YOU VERY

01:42 - 44.300 MUCH. THANK YOU.

01:42 - 54.890 WE'LL SEE HOW THE ARGUMENT

01:42 - 55.200 GOES.

01:43 - 05.830 KEEP CURRENT

01:43 - 07.270 BEHALF OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF

01:43 - 08.280 PENNSYLVANIA WHO'S THE

01:43 - 08.890 APPLE II.

01:43 - 10.890 >>IN THIS ASSISTANT DISTRICT

01:43 - 12.200 ATTORNEY I'M IN ALLEGHENY

01:43 - 12.590 COUNTY.

01:43 - 15.610 MEMBERS OF THE

01:43 - 20.670 THE WAY I READ THE THAT

01:43 - 22.970 WAS GRANTED BY THIS COURT.

01:43 - 25.680 WHAT I UNDERSTOOD THE

01:43 - 27.160 APPELLANTS ARGUMENT TO BE

01:43 - 30.170 IS THAT WE'RE IN THE ROUND OF

01:43 - 32.480 CONSTRUCT NOTICE HERE

01:43 - 35.680 AND CAN CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE

01:43 - 37.970 BE PROVIDED BY ANYONE OTHER

01:43 - 39.980 THAN A LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICER

01:43 - 42.340 OR A DESIGNATED COURT PERSON

01:43 - 44.620 OUT THAT IS WHAT THE APPELLANT

01:43 - 47.010 IS ASKING THIS COURT TO LIMIT

01:43 - 48.390 CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE TOO.

01:43 - 52.170 OKAY THAT WOULD BE. I I THINK

01:43 - 55.620 INCONSISTENT WITH STAN. STATON

01:43 - 57.340 EXCUSE ME. THIS COURT'S

01:43 - 59.110 PREVIOUS DECISION WERE

01:43 - 00.530 CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE WAS

01:44 - 02.930 PROVIDED BY A VARIETY OF

01:44 - 06.170 SOURCES. INCLUDING FRIENDS OF

01:44 - 09.450 THE VICTIM. THE VICTIM. THERE

01:44 - 11.740 WAS SOMEBODY THAT. WAS SOME

01:44 - 12.730 SORT OF COURT

01:44 - 15.800 PERSONNEL. BUT THAT WAS NOT

01:44 - 17.320 WHAT THIS COURT LOOKED TO AS A

01:44 - 18.720 DISPOSITIVE FACT

01:44 - 20.030 THANK YOU QUALIFIED THE

01:44 - 21.370 QUESTION THOUGH A LITTLE BIT IN

01:44 - 22.780 HIS IN HIS ANSWERS WHERE HE

01:44 - 23.190 SAID.

01:44 - 24.640 >>UNLESS THERE'S EVIDENCE THAT

01:44 - 26.050 THERE WAS AN ATTEMPT TO AVOID.

01:44 - 28.820 SERVICE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

01:44 - 31.420 I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE YOU

01:44 - 33.680 KNOW THE PALACE COUNCIL IS SAY.

01:44 - 34.950 >>OK IF IF

01:44 - 37.860 THAT'S NOT MY UNDERSTANDING OF

01:44 - 39.350 THE QUESTION THAT WAS GRANTED

01:44 - 41.160 BY THIS COURT BAD AGREE WE ACT

01:44 - 43.030 QUALIFICATION REALLY NOT PART

01:44 - 45.790 OF WHAT WAS ASKED.

01:44 - 50.950 SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT.

01:44 - 53.200 IT IS EVEN PART OF OUR BRIEF

01:44 - 54.900 BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT SOMETHING

01:44 - 57.090 THAT WAS PROPOSED AS

01:44 - 59.060 A LIMITATION WHEN THE APPELLANT

01:44 - 00.480 ASKED HER THIS QUESTION TO BE

01:45 - 02.260 REVIEWED. SO I DON'T THINK

01:45 - 03.790 THAT'S REALLY A PART OF A PART

01:45 - 05.140 OF THE CASE THAT WAS STAYING

01:45 - 06.730 WAS A OF COURSE IT WAS.

01:45 - 08.500 >>CONTEXT OF AN AGGRAVATED FOR

01:45 - 10.790 THE DEATH PENALTY, BUT. THAT

01:45 - 13.620 WAS THE CASE. WHERE THE RECORD.

01:45 - 16.060 I'VE INCLUDED DELIVERED

01:45 - 16.540 A BOY.

01:45 - 22.080 AND I APPRECIATE YOU'RE

01:45 - 23.750 FOCUSING ON THE ISSUE PRESENT

01:45 - 25.680 IT I THINK THAT'S THAT'S GOOD

01:45 - 28.400 BECAUSE THAT IS. THE NUMBER OF

01:45 - 28.610 IT I

01:45 - 32.820 CAN YOU IDENTIFY ANY EXAMPLES.

01:45 - 36.340 FOR PURPOSES OF THE CRIMES

01:45 - 37.760 CODE HERE WHAT WE'RE TALKING

01:45 - 39.850 ABOUT THE ICC THIS

01:45 - 42.500 IS NOT THIS IS NOT A PFA THIS

01:45 - 44.840 IS A CRIMINAL THIS IS A NICE

01:45 - 47.360 AND SEE BECAUSE OF VIOLATIONS

01:45 - 48.570 ALLEGED THAT THE PFA

01:45 - 51.000 SO CAN YOU IDENTIFY ANY

01:45 - 53.180 EXAMPLES IN THE CRIMINAL LAW

01:45 - 54.590 WITH THE GOVERNMENT.

01:45 - 57.620 >>SATISFIES DUE PROCESS NOTICE.

01:45 - 00.700 WIRELINE AND COMMENTS MADE BY

01:46 - 02.780 NON-STATE ACTORS.

01:46 - 09.090 >>YOU KNOW I I DON'T HAVE AN

01:46 - 10.500 EXAMPLE AS I STAND HERE RIGHT

01:46 - 11.050 NOW.

01:46 - 13.100 BUT WHAT I WILL SAY IS IN THE

01:46 - 14.210 PADILLA CASE.

01:46 - 17.680 WHAT THE SUPERIOR COURTS THAT'S

01:46 - 18.910 THE SUPERIOR COURT CASE FROM

01:46 - 21.290 2005. AND WHAT THAT WHAT

01:46 - 22.130 THEY'RE LOOKING TO IS ARE

01:46 - 23.360 SAYING BECAUSE OF THE

01:46 - 25.040 IMPORTANCE OF THE PROTECTION

01:46 - 27.400 FROM ABUSE ACT AND THE PURPOSE

01:46 - 27.950 OF IT.

01:46 - 32.030 DUE PROCESS IS IS LOOKED AT

01:46 - 34.250 SLIGHTLY DIFFERENTLY THEN OTHER

01:46 - 35.850 THINGS UNDER THE CRIMES CODE.

01:46 - 37.670 THERE'S A REDUCED.

01:46 - 41.780 I NEED TO ADD HERE TO DUE

01:46 - 44.240 PROCESS STRICTLY. THEY'RE

01:46 - 45.650 SAYING BECAUSE THESE ORDERS

01:46 - 47.530 NEED TO BE ABLE TO BE ENFORCED.

01:46 - 48.940 >>THAT'S FAIR LET ME JUST IF I

01:46 - 50.420 COULD JUST FOLLOW UP BRIEFLY

01:46 - 50.520 AND

01:46 - 55.450 >>IF WE

01:46 - 56.110 IF WE.

01:46 - 58.960 >>CHOOSE NOT TO TROUBLE PUT

01:47 - 01.340 >>AND LEAVE

01:47 - 02.300 THAT BE.

01:47 - 05.040 >>WHICH IS THE CASE ALLOWING

01:47 - 06.290 THE NOTICE FROM THE POLICE

01:47 - 08.290 SERGEANT WITH THE EXIGENT

01:47 - 11.080 CIRCUMSTANCES THAT ETCETERA

01:47 - 13.720 AND THEN WE MOVED TO THIS CASE

01:47 - 14.740 WHERE THERE'S THE COUSIN

01:47 - 17.710 SHOUTING DOWN. ABOUT YOU KNOW

01:47 - 18.720 IT'S GOING TO BE HERE

01:47 - 19.920 APPARENTLY THERE WERE NO MAGIC

01:47 - 21.490 WORDS ABOUT A FINAL PFA ORDER

01:47 - 22.690 BEING UNDER THAT'S NOT ON THE

01:47 - 25.840 RECORD. SO

01:47 - 27.100 WHERE ARE WE ON A SLIPPERY

01:47 - 28.600 SLOPE. IN OTHER WORDS,

01:47 - 31.180 POTENTIAL DEFENDANTS OUT THERE

01:47 - 32.190 AND THERE'S A LOT OF THESE.

01:47 - 34.440 CASES OUT

01:47 - 36.870 I KNOW BECAUSE I RESIDE IN A

01:47 - 39.230 LOT OF THESE PFA SON ICC'S IN

01:47 - 42.080 COMMON PLEAS. WHAT

01:47 - 43.870 IS THE STANDARD THAT THESE

01:47 - 45.640 PUNITIVE DEFENDANTS NEED TO

01:47 - 47.030 KNOW TO ADD HERE SO THEY DON'T

01:47 - 49.360 RUN AFOUL OF THAT CRIMINAL LAW.

01:47 - 51.180 IF

01:47 - 53.730 SOMEBODY SHOUT ACROSS THE

01:47 - 55.750 STREET AT THE HEY DON'T GO

01:47 - 57.610 OVER THERE. IS THAT

01:47 - 58.850 CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE

01:48 - 01.760 A SITUATION LIKE THIS WITH A

01:48 - 03.450 COUSIN SAYING GO AWAY YOU'RE

01:48 - 04.360 NOT SUPPOSED TO BE HERE.

01:48 - 06.340 THAT'S CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE.

01:48 - 09.670 WHERE WHERE DO WE DRAW THE LINE

01:48 - 11.520 FOR PURPOSES OF CRIMINAL

01:48 - 13.840 EXPOSURE. GIVEN THAT DUE

01:48 - 17.230 PROCESS DOES REQUIRE. NOTICE.

01:48 - 19.560 BEFORE CONVICTION.

01:48 - 22.480 >>I UNDERSTAND YOUR

01:48 - 27.400 WHAT YOU NEED TO LOOK AT

01:48 - 29.820 HERE IS THE APPELLANT IS ASKING

01:48 - 32.020 YOU TO MAKE A RULE TO LIMIT.

01:48 - 34.130 HOW NOTICE MAY BE GIVEN TO

01:48 - 35.740 THE DEFENDANT EITHER THROUGH

01:48 - 37.430 LAW ENFORCEMENT PERSONNEL OR

01:48 - 39.140 COURT PERSONNEL ONLY.

01:48 - 41.580 IT'S DIFFICULT TO IMAGINE ALL

01:48 - 44.340 THE FACTUAL SCENARIOS. IF

01:48 - 46.650 NOTICE IS GIVEN OUTSIDE OF THAT

01:48 - 48.350 THAT COULD OCCUR.

01:48 - 52.130 I THINK WHAT THE LAW AS

01:48 - 55.410 IT STANDS. REQUIRES IS THAT

01:48 - 56.910 THE DEFENDANT BE MADE AWARE

01:48 - 58.500 THAT THERE'S AN ORDER AND WHAT

01:48 - 00.350 THE CONSEQUENCES ARE OF

01:49 - 01.120 VIOLATING IT.

01:49 - 05.750 YOU HAVE THE

01:49 - 07.420 CARS AND TELLING

01:49 - 10.430 THE DEFENDANT. THERE IS A PFA

01:49 - 15.150 >>THAT'S A LOT IN THE MAYBE

01:49 - 16.500 WE'RE SPLITTING HAIRS, BUT THE

01:49 - 19.140 COUSIN, I'M NOT SURE THE MAGIC

01:49 - 21.810 WORDS WOULD BECAUSE

01:49 - 23.080 WE STILL HAVE THE ISSUE ABOUT

01:49 - 24.160 WHETHER SHE'S A GOVERNMENT

01:49 - 26.540 AFTER A LOT BUT TO THE EXTENT

01:49 - 27.660 IT'S RELEVANT.

01:49 - 30.210 WHAT YOU SAID IS YOU CANNOT BE

01:49 - 31.780 THERE. THE POLICE JUST LEFT I'M

01:49 - 32.700 GOING TO HAVE TO CALL THE

01:49 - 33.650 POLICE AGAIN.

01:49 - 38.350 SHE SAID YOU CANNOT BE HERE YOU

01:49 - 39.830 HAVE A TWO-YEAR VIOLATION.

01:49 - 42.530 YOU CANNOT BE HERE. SO I

01:49 - 44.250 MEAN THAT'S PRETTY GOOD FOR A

01:49 - 45.460 LAY PERSON RIGHT BUT

01:49 - 47.480 TO THE EXTENT MAGIC WORDS ARE

01:49 - 48.730 IMPORTANT AND I DON'T KNOW THAT

01:49 - 50.920 THEY ARE. SHE DIDN'T SAY A

01:49 - 53.270 FINAL PFA WAS ORDER BETTER WAS

01:49 - 55.500 OR BETTER YESTERDAY OR TODAY.

01:49 - 00.120 >>I DON'T KNOW IF YOUR HONOR

01:50 - 01.150 HAS THE TRANSCRIPT.

01:50 - 05.900 ON ON PAGE 17.

01:50 - 08.630 THERE'S A QUESTION DID YOU TELL

01:50 - 10.240 HIM THERE'S A PFA IN EFFECT

01:50 - 12.280 ANSWER. YES, WHEN DID YOU TELL

01:50 - 13.680 HIM THAT AT 3.30 IN THE

01:50 - 15.060 MORNING. WHEN YOU SAW HIM IN

01:50 - 16.740 THE BASEMENT. ANSWER, YES.

01:50 - 19.260 THAT'S NOT DELVE INTO ANY

01:50 - 19.910 FURTHER.

01:50 - 23.230 THE PORTION THAT YOU QUOTED

01:50 - 25.040 THAT'S WHERE THE MAJORITY OF IT

01:50 - 26.980 IS DISCUSSED, BUT ON ON PAGE

01:50 - 29.730 17. THE WAY I COURT THERE'S A

01:50 - 30.890 DIRECT QUESTION DID YOU TELL

01:50 - 32.330 THEM THERE'S A PFA IN EFFECT

01:50 - 33.170 ANSWER. YES.

01:50 - 36.820 WHAT I WHAT

01:50 - 38.150 ELSE WAS SAID OTHER THAN THE

01:50 - 39.790 WORDS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT

01:50 - 42.180 IN THIS. I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE

01:50 - 42.640 BUT.

01:50 - 44.740 YOU KNOW SO AS NOT TO TALK

01:50 - 45.820 ABOUT THIS IN THE ABSTRACT I

01:50 - 47.910 MEAN WE NEED TO KEEP IN MIND

01:50 - 50.210 WHAT THE DEFENDANT KNOWS AT THE

01:50 - 51.970 MOMENT THAT HE'S BEING TOLD

01:50 - 52.820 THIS BY THE CAUSE.

01:50 - 54.820 OKAY, HE KNOWS THAT THERE'S A

01:50 - 56.610 TEMPER THERE WAS A TEMPORARY

01:50 - 59.560 PFA ORDER IN EFFECT. HE KNOWS

01:50 - 01.410 THERE WAS A HEARING AS TO

01:51 - 02.430 WHETHER THERE WAS A HEARING

01:51 - 05.290 SCHEDULED FOR AS EXCUSE ME A

01:51 - 06.940 FINAL ORDER IN THE FINAL

01:51 - 08.780 HEARING DATE. HE DID NOT

01:51 - 11.650 ATTACKED. OKAY. WE DON'T KNOW

01:51 - 15.180 WHY IT'S NOT RECORD. 3 DAYS

01:51 - 17.180 AFTER THAT. AFTER THE DATE OF

01:51 - 18.730 THE HEARING. HE IS AT THE

01:51 - 20.580 VICTIM'S HOUSE. HE IS BEING

01:51 - 22.480 TOLD BY THE COUSIN OF THE

01:51 - 24.930 VICTIM. YOU CANNOT BE HERE.

01:51 - 27.710 THERE IS A PFA IN EFFECT.

01:51 - 29.820 WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO CALL THE

01:51 - 31.960 POLICE, SHE'S ME HE SAYS PLEASE

01:51 - 33.150 DON'T CALL THE POLICE.

01:51 - 35.720 SHE TELLS HIM IT'S FOR TO YOU A

01:51 - 38.130 TWO-YEAR VIOLATION. SHE'S

01:51 - 39.500 TELLING HIM THERE'S AN ORDER.

01:51 - 40.740 SHE'S TELLING HIM

01:51 - 43.200 THE IMPORTANT POINTS OF THE

01:51 - 44.910 ORDER THAT HE CAN'T BE AT THE

01:51 - 46.540 HOUSE FOR 2 YEARS.

01:51 - 48.620 AND HE'S RESPONDING PLEASE

01:51 - 50.870 DON'T CALL THE POLICE. I MEAN.

01:51 - 53.630 THIS IS NOT A CONVERSATION THAT

01:51 - 54.670 IS HAPPENING WITHOUT

01:51 - 56.810 ANY CONTEXT. HE KNOWS THERE WAS

01:51 - 59.740 A TEMPORARY PFA PRIOR TO THAT

01:51 - 00.170 HEARING.

01:52 - 03.740 YOU KNOW HE ASKED THAT THEY NOT

01:52 - 04.620 CALL THE POLICE.

01:52 - 07.620 HE BELIEVES. AND THEN HE

01:52 - 08.560 RETURNS LATER.

01:52 - 12.830 YOU KNOW AGAIN THE CONTEXT OF

01:52 - 14.200 WHAT HAPPENED HERE IS IMPORTANT

01:52 - 15.910 HE SHOWING UP IN THE MIDDLE OF

01:52 - 16.450 THE NIGHT.

01:52 - 18.730 HE WAS THERE MULTIPLE TIMES HE

01:52 - 21.100 WAS THERE AT ONE ABOUT ONE 45

01:52 - 22.120 AM ON THE PORCH.

01:52 - 24.610 HE'S THERE TO SOMETHING HE'S ON

01:52 - 26.590 THE BACK. THEN HE'S IN THE

01:52 - 27.690 BASEMENT, WHEN THEY'RE ALL

01:52 - 29.310 ASLEEP. THE ONLY REASON I KNOW

01:52 - 30.480 HE'S THERE BECAUSE HE WAKES

01:52 - 31.850 THEM UP IN THE COUSIN GOES DOWN

01:52 - 33.070 AND TELL THEM YOU HAVE TO LEAVE

01:52 - 36.060 IS THE VIOLATION OF THE PFA

01:52 - 36.600 ORDER.

01:52 - 40.290 >>WHEN HE GOES EVERY

01:52 - 42.830 SEASON NOTICE OR THE SUBSEQUENT

01:52 - 44.120 RETURN TO HER HOME IN THE

01:52 - 46.240 MORNING. RIGHT I THINK IT'S

01:52 - 48.090 ONCE HE IS TOLD.

01:52 - 50.770 IT'S THE IS RETURNING AFTER

01:52 - 52.750 HE'S TOLD BY THE COUSIN THAT'S

01:52 - 54.980 MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT AND

01:52 - 57.050 WE KNOW YOU KNOW YOU CAN TELL

01:52 - 59.000 FROM THE EVIDENCE HE WAS BACK

01:52 - 01.730 AT LEAST TWICE. THE CARS AND

01:53 - 04.220 WATCHES HIM LEAVE. THE DOG IS

01:53 - 05.170 STILL IN THE YARD.

01:53 - 07.690 AT SOME POINT LATER SHE WAKES

01:53 - 09.060 UP THE DOG IS GONE.

01:53 - 11.220 AND THEN HE RETURNS WITH THE

01:53 - 13.220 DOG AFTER THE POLICE OR CALL.

01:53 - 15.190 YOU KNOW AND AT THAT POINT

01:53 - 16.550 AGAIN SHE TELLS HIM ABOUT THE

01:53 - 18.320 ORDER AND HE SAYS MORE OR LESS

01:53 - 20.320 I DON'T CARE. YOU KNOW, I

01:53 - 21.330 DON'T CARE THAT YOU'RE GOING TO

01:53 - 22.390 HAVE TO CALL THE POLICE.

01:53 - 23.190 SO THIS IS

01:53 - 25.980 NOT SOMEONE. I THINK WHEN YOU

01:53 - 26.970 LOOK AT THE WHOLE CONTEXT.

01:53 - 28.330 I DON'T THINK WE CAN SAY IT'S A

01:53 - 29.870 FAIR ASSUMPTION TO THINK THAT

01:53 - 31.700 THE DEFENDANT DID NOT KNOW THE

01:53 - 33.950 CONSEQUENCES OF THE ORDER OR

01:53 - 36.040 THAT IT EXISTED AMERICA CAN YOU

01:53 - 37.130 FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

01:53 - 38.910 >>WHY IS THAT FAIR TO SOMETHING

01:53 - 41.910 THAT HE KNEW THE OF VIOLATION.

01:53 - 45.710 >>EXCUSE ME WHY WHY WHY IS IT A

01:53 - 46.770 FAIR ASSUMPTION.

01:53 - 49.840 >>THAT THE DEFENDANT KNEW THE

01:53 - 52.950 CONSEQUENCES OF A VIOLATION.

01:53 - 54.100 >>BECAUSE HE ASKING FOR THE

01:53 - 55.100 POLICE NOT TO BE CALLED.

01:53 - 56.450 >>AND THE END YOU COULD THINK

01:53 - 57.440 THEY WOULD YOU TAKE THEM.

01:53 - 58.590 THAT'S COMPLETE.

01:53 - 00.810 >>HE ALSO KNOWS THE TEMPORARY

01:54 - 02.950 PFA HAD PREVIOUSLY OKAY

01:54 - 04.470 OPERATING IN FACT WE'RE LOOKING

01:54 - 06.160 AT A LOT OF EXTREME E

01:54 - 08.200 YEAH AND THAT MIGHT BE A

01:54 - 10.140 LOGICAL CONCLUSION, BUT THAT'S

01:54 - 11.050 WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

01:54 - 12.540 >>KNOWING SAID TO HIM IF YOU

01:54 - 13.930 VIOLATE YOUR YOU COULD BE

01:54 - 16.590 ARRESTED AND HELD IN A CRIMINAL

01:54 - 17.330 COMPLAINT.

01:54 - 20.740 DIRECTING IT UNDER THE RELIEF

01:54 - 23.030 WHICH IF I CAN DO THAT.

01:54 - 25.250 >>PUBLIC FINAL ORDER

01:54 - 27.510 IS THAT THE ONLY REQUIREMENT

01:54 - 29.270 THAT PART OF THE CALL.

01:54 - 31.480 THEY LOST DIRECTED THE FED TO

01:54 - 33.710 REFRAIN FROM USING HER GRAPHIC

01:54 - 35.500 FORM. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE

01:54 - 37.320 STATUTE THAT SAID THE ARREST

01:54 - 39.780 PROSECUTE IT WE'RE VERY WIRED

01:54 - 41.910 FOR FILLING THE 60 WANT REALLY.

01:54 - 44.540 WRECKED.

01:54 - 47.400 >>I'M NOT SURE YOUR HONOR I

01:54 - 49.010 DON'T US. I DON'T I DON'T HAVE

01:54 - 50.430 60 WHY WAIT IN FRONT OF ME.

01:54 - 53.270 >>WELL THIS STATUTE 61 LATE

01:54 - 54.440 NOTICE SHALL BE GIVEN TO

01:54 - 56.440 THE DEFENDANT STATING THAT

01:54 - 57.740 VIOLATIONS OF AN ORDER WILL

01:54 - 59.340 SUBJECT THE DEFENDANT TO ARREST

01:54 - 00.870 FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.

01:55 - 03.030 OK AND THE QUESTION BEFORE US

01:55 - 05.180 I THINK I'M SAYING WE'VE GOT A

01:55 - 07.210 FINE JOB OF ADDRESSING IT.

01:55 - 08.840 WE STILL ARE GOING TO HAVE TO

01:55 - 12.080 DECIDE. NOT JUST THIS CASE THIS

01:55 - 14.760 GUY'S CASE RIGHT. BUT WEATHER.

01:55 - 17.040 PEOPLE ARE GOING TO BE EXPOSED

01:55 - 18.300 TO THAT IF THEY'RE

01:55 - 19.870 TOLD BY SOMEBODY OTHER THAN A

01:55 - 21.370 GOVERNMENT AGENT.

01:55 - 25.920 AND BEFORE HE DID NOT RECEIVE

01:55 - 27.280 HE RECEIVED A TEMPORARY PFA

01:55 - 28.170 WHERE THERE'S NO DOUBT ABOUT

01:55 - 29.890 THAT RIGHT HE WAS HE WAS AT THE

01:55 - 31.850 HEARING FOR THE TEMPORARY PFA A

01:55 - 33.920 STAR THERE'S AN AFFIDAVIT VERY

01:55 - 35.410 HAS A NOTICE TO THE DEFENDANT

01:55 - 35.880 ABOUT.

01:55 - 37.780 >>ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES OF

01:55 - 38.950 FAILURE TO COMPLY

01:55 - 40.640 WITH THE TEMPORARY PFA

01:55 - 42.050 INCLUDING BE INDIRECT

01:55 - 44.090 CRIMINAL CONTEMPT. I WOULD

01:55 - 45.350 PRESUME SO YOUR HONOR I THINK

01:55 - 46.390 IN THE RECORD IS JUST THE

01:55 - 48.010 AFFIDAVIT FROM THE FRONT OF

01:55 - 49.120 SERVICE FROM THE TEMPLE.

01:55 - 51.300 I HAVE THE TEMPORARY PFA HERE

01:55 - 52.750 SO I MEAN OKAY HAS BEEN NOTICED

01:55 - 54.050 THE DEFENDANT AND SPECIFICALLY

01:55 - 56.570 REFERENCE 61 '08. I GUESS I'M

01:55 - 58.400 WONDERING WHAT DEFENDANT WOULD

01:55 - 59.600 WHO FINDS OUT THAT THEY'RE

01:55 - 01.610 SUBJECT PERMANENT

01:56 - 03.810 PFA WITH THINK THAT.

01:56 - 06.020 SOMEHOW A VIOLATION OF A PERMIT

01:56 - 07.680 A TEMPORARY WOULD RESULT IN THE

01:56 - 10.080 ICC CONVICTION OR CHARGE BUT

01:56 - 11.240 NOT A PERMANENT ONE.

01:56 - 15.380 WE ONLY IN THE CASE.

01:56 - 17.760 GOING UNANSWERED JUSTICE

01:56 - 19.880 BROUGHT US TO TAKE A IN.

01:56 - 20.910 >>SUMMARIZE.

01:56 - 22.380 >>I JUST WANT TO SAY ONE OTHER

01:56 - 25.280 THING I I I WANT TO POINT OUT

01:56 - 27.230 TO THE COURT. I

01:56 - 28.490 THINK YOUR CONCERNS ARE WELL

01:56 - 30.330 TAKEN ABOUT WHEN CAN WE

01:56 - 31.790 YOU KNOW AT WHAT POINT DO WE

01:56 - 33.010 DRAW THE LINE ABOUT WHEN A

01:56 - 34.310 DEFENDANT HAS NOTICE. I MEAN I

01:56 - 36.050 THINK THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION.

01:56 - 41.680 YOU CAN ACCOUNT FOR

01:56 - 44.510 EVERY FACTUAL SCENARIO AND ALL

01:56 - 45.830 THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE

01:56 - 47.370 THAT MAY OCCUR IN EVERY SINGLE

01:56 - 49.050 CASE. THESE ARE.

01:56 - 51.560 YOU KNOW BEST LEFT I THINK WITH

01:56 - 52.550 THE TRIAL COURT

01:56 - 55.240 TO DETERMINE IS THERE ENOUGH

01:56 - 57.160 EVIDENCE THAT THE DEFENDANT WAS

01:56 - 59.410 PUT ON NOTICE TO FIND THE

01:56 - 01.350 DEFENDANT GUILTY OR NOT THAT'S

01:57 - 02.850 A FAIR QUESTION FOR THE FACT

01:57 - 04.850 FINDER. TO BE ABLE

01:57 - 07.700 TO ADDRESS AND FOR A JURY TO

01:57 - 10.380 DECIDE AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT

01:57 - 12.120 THIS COURT WAS LOOKING AT THAT.

01:57 - 13.870 YOU KNOW WITH WHETHER OR NOT BE

01:57 - 16.330 AGGRAVATING FACTOR COULD HAVE

01:57 - 17.830 BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE JURY

01:57 - 20.460 BASED ON THE EVIDENCE THAT WAS

01:57 - 21.880 BEFORE THE COURT AND THIS COURT

01:57 - 23.280 FOUND THAT THAT WAS A FINE

01:57 - 25.210 QUESTION BE PUT BEFORE THE JURY

01:57 - 27.560 FOR A FACT FINDER TO THE SITE.

01:57 - 28.370 SO

01:57 - 29.960 THAT'S GOING TO BE A BACKSTOP

01:57 - 31.060 AS WELL, I MEAN IF IF

01:57 - 33.330 YOU KNOW 3RD PARTY THAT'S

01:57 - 34.810 COMPLETELY UNRELATED AND IS

01:57 - 36.960 NOT CONVEYING. THE CORRECT

01:57 - 38.290 INFORMATION OR ENOUGH

01:57 - 39.790 INFORMATION. THE DEFENDING CAN

01:57 - 41.610 BE FOUND NOT GUILTY. YOU KNOW

01:57 - 42.810 BECAUSE NOTICE IS ONE OF THE

01:57 - 45.710 ELEMENTS. SO MAKING A RULE THAT

01:57 - 47.930 LIMITED TO JUST LAW ENFORCEMENT

01:57 - 49.210 AND COURT PERSONNEL I THINK

01:57 - 50.770 WOULD NOT ACCOUNT FOR ALL THE

01:57 - 52.130 SCENARIOS WHERE A DEFENDANT

01:57 - 53.420 WOULD HAVE PROPER NOTICE.

01:57 - 54.980 I THINK YOU'RE ON YOUR OWN.

01:57 - 56.100 THANK YOU FOR THE ARGUMENT.

01:57 - 00.030 >>THE NEXT CASE TO BE ARGUED

01:58 - 01.810 IS AN APPEAL IN A PRODUCT

01:58 - 04.200 LIABILITY CASE FROM A TRIAL

01:58 - 07.110 COURT ORDER THAT DENIED MOTIONS

01:58 - 08.990 FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT FILED BY

01:58 - 10.070 BOTH DEFENDANTS.

01:58 - 13.260 THE PLAINTIFF IN THE CASE

01:58 - 15.470 WILLIAM QUARANTINE HE'S AN

01:58 - 17.410 ILLINOIS RESIDENT WHO WAS

01:58 - 18.910 STANDING ON A FIBERGLASS

01:58 - 20.860 EXTENSION LADDER PERFORMING

01:58 - 22.450 SOME MAINTENANCE AT HIS HOME.

01:58 - 24.760 WHEN THE LATTER TELESCOPE

01:58 - 27.140 DOWNWARD. CAUSING HIM TO FALL

01:58 - 28.630 AND SUSTAINED QUADRIPLEGIC

01:58 - 29.250 INJURIES.

01:58 - 31.330 THE LATTER HAD BEEN

01:58 - 33.090 MANUFACTURED IN ILLINOIS.

01:58 - 34.940 WHY A LADDER COMPANY THAT

01:58 - 36.660 SUBSEQUENTLY WENT BANKRUPT.

01:58 - 39.080 AND HIS ASSETS HAD BEEN

01:58 - 41.010 PURCHASED BY A SUCCESSOR LADDER

01:58 - 43.370 COMPANY. WE KNEW WE'RE IN A

01:58 - 45.530 HOLDING COMPANY WHICH HAD ITS

01:58 - 46.830 CORPORATE OFFICES IN

01:58 - 47.630 PENNSYLVANIA.

01:58 - 50.040 THERE ARE MANY ISSUES BEFORE

01:58 - 51.650 THE TRIAL COURT BUT THE LIMITED

01:58 - 52.650 ISSUE BEFORE THE

01:58 - 55.120 SUPREME COURT HAS TO DO WITH

01:58 - 56.600 PENNSYLVANIA'S BORROWING

01:58 - 57.490 STATUTE.

01:58 - 00.390 NEW WARNER HAD MOVED THE TRIAL

01:59 - 02.160 COURT FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

01:59 - 04.970 BASED UPON ILLINOIS STATUTE

01:59 - 08.000 OF REPOSE WHICH REQUIRED THAT

01:59 - 10.160 ALL PRODUCT LIABILITY CLAIMS

01:59 - 12.210 BASED ON STRICT LIABILITY.

01:59 - 14.820 WE COMMENCED WITHIN 12 YEARS

01:59 - 17.180 FROM THE DATA FIRST SALE OR

01:59 - 19.080 DELIVERY OF POSSESSION OF THE

01:59 - 22.000 PRODUCT BY A SELLER. IN THIS

01:59 - 23.630 CASE, MISTER CORN FIEND

01:59 - 25.600 ALLEGED HE BOUGHT THE LATTER

01:59 - 28.010 SOMETIME IN THE LATE 90'S AND

01:59 - 28.800 WAS INJURED IN

01:59 - 32.140 2013. FOR MORE THAN 12 YEARS

01:59 - 33.760 AFTER HE PURCHASED THE LATTER.

01:59 - 36.530 MISTER CORN FIEN FILED SUIT

01:59 - 38.380 IN PENNSYLVANIA, WHERE THE

01:59 - 40.190 CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS OF NEW

01:59 - 42.840 WARNER IS LOCATED. NEW

01:59 - 44.650 WERNER CONTENDED THAT

01:59 - 46.150 PENNSYLVANIA IS BORROWING

01:59 - 47.950 STATUTE. WORK WIRES,

01:59 - 50.660 PENNSYLVANIA COURTS TO BORROW

01:59 - 52.460 THE LIMITATIONS PERIOD,

01:59 - 54.820 APPLICABLE TO CLAIMS OCCURRING

01:59 - 56.330 OUTSIDE THE COMMONWEALTH.

01:59 - 59.290 AND THAT SINCE ILLINOIS HAD A

01:59 - 01.460 STATUTE OF REPOSE THAT WOULD

02:00 - 03.690 BAR MISTER QUARANTINE FROM

02:00 - 04.980 BRINGING SUIT THERE.

02:00 - 07.060 PENNSYLVANIA MUST HONOR

02:00 - 09.400 ILLINOIS DETERMINATION. THAT

02:00 - 11.170 HE'S SOON AS BARRED BY THE

02:00 - 12.940 ILLINOIS STATUTE OF REPOSE.

02:00 - 15.570 THE TRIAL COURT DENIED NEW

02:00 - 16.500 WARNER'S MOTION.

02:00 - 19.840 FILED A PETITION

02:00 - 22.650 FOR REVIEW. ASKING THE SUPERIOR

02:00 - 25.780 COURT TO HEAR THE ITS APPEAL OF

02:00 - 27.580 AN ISSUE THAT WAS ONE OF FIRST

02:00 - 29.450 IMPRESSION AND PENNSYLVANIA'S

02:00 - 30.490 APPELLATE COURTS.

02:00 - 33.140 THE SUPERIOR COURT AGREED TO

02:00 - 33.960 HEAR THE APPEAL.

02:00 - 36.700 AND FOUND THAT PENNSYLVANIA'S

02:00 - 39.550 BORROWING STATUTE APPLIED ONLY

02:00 - 41.460 TO STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS

02:00 - 44.100 WHICH ESTABLISHED TIME LIMITS

02:00 - 46.690 FOR BRINGING SUITS. AND NOT TO

02:00 - 49.440 STATUTES OF REPOSE THE PLACE

02:00 - 51.670 AND OUTER LIMIT ON THE RIGHT TO

02:00 - 54.120 BRING IN ACTION. THE SUPREME

02:00 - 56.600 COURT GRANTED NEW WARNER'S

02:00 - 57.970 PETITION FOR ALLOWANCE OF

02:00 - 59.740 APPEAL. AND WE'LL HAVE AN

02:00 - 01.880 OPPORTUNITY TO RESOLVE THIS

02:01 - 03.690 NEVER BEFORE DECIDED IN

02:01 - 06.110 PENNSYLVANIA ISSUE AS TO

02:01 - 07.290 WHETHER PENNSYLVANIA'S

02:01 - 09.900 BORROWING STATUTE APPLIES

02:01 - 12.370 ONLY 2 OTHER STATE STATUTES OF

02:01 - 14.090 LIMITATION. WORTH IT

02:01 - 16.890 ALSO APPLIES. 2 OTHER STATES

02:01 - 19.550 STATUTE OF REPOSE LET'S LISTEN

02:01 - 20.130 TO THE ARGUMENT.

02:01 - 23.470 >>RIGHT JUST EXPLAIN

02:01 - 24.820 TO JUSTICE TANI WHO WILL NOT BE

02:01 - 26.410 PARTICIPATING IN THIS WE'RE

02:01 - 26.960 ONLY DOWN

02:01 - 28.840 ONE JUSTICE. I WANT TO CALL THE

02:01 - 30.320 CASE WILL PROCEED AND JUSTICE

02:01 - 31.430 POD WILL JOIN US.

02:01 - 48.700 AND LET ME TRY TO EXPLAIN WITH

02:01 - 50.040 US ABOUT AGAIN IT'S HELPFUL

02:01 - 52.190 BECAUSE TO THE EXTENT THAT

02:01 - 54.010 I DON'T I UNDERSTAND IT

02:01 - 56.210 COMPLETELY THEN YOU CAN CORRECT

02:01 - 56.610 THAT.

02:01 - 59.580 PENNSYLVANIA'S BUYER WE STATUTE

02:01 - 01.390 WHICH AFTER 50 YEARS, NO LAW

02:02 - 02.850 AND NEVER HEARD OF BEFORE THIS

02:02 - 05.590 CASE. SET FOR IT.

02:02 - 08.030 SET FORTH IN THE UNIFORM

02:02 - 09.690 STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS REPORT

02:02 - 11.830 CLAIMS ACT PROVIDES THAT THE

02:02 - 13.500 PERIOD OF THE IMITATION IS

02:02 - 15.330 APPLICABLE TO A CLAIM ACCRUING

02:02 - 16.490 OUTSIDE THIS COMMONWEALTH

02:02 - 19.550 SHELBY EITHER SHELBY EITHER

02:02 - 21.210 THAT PROVIDED OR PRESCRIBED BY

02:02 - 22.430 THE LAW OF THE PLACE WHERE THE

02:02 - 23.950 CLAIM ACCRUED ABOUT ALLIES IN

02:02 - 26.190 THIS COMMONWEALTH. WHICHEVER

02:02 - 28.260 FIRST WAS THE CLAIM.

02:02 - 30.350 THE APPEAL THIS APPEAL PRESENTS

02:02 - 31.860 THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THAT

02:02 - 33.390 PROVISION REQUIRES PENNSYLVANIA

02:02 - 34.620 COURTS BORROW

02:02 - 36.520 ONLY THE 4 JURISDICTIONS

02:02 - 37.050 STATUTE

02:02 - 39.100 OF LIMITATIONS. WE'RE ALSO THE

02:02 - 40.400 FOREIGN JUST CURIOUS DICTION

02:02 - 41.840 STATUTE OF REPOSE AND I THINK

02:02 - 43.670 THIS CASE PROBABLY IS CLEAR SO

02:02 - 45.830 IF THAT'S ACCURATE. IF AND WHEN

02:02 - 46.960 WHAT VAN DER

02:02 - 48.980 WARD UNDERWENT, THEN IT WOULD

02:02 - 49.750 FEEL FREE TO GO AHEAD.

02:02 - 52.490 >>THANK YOU YOUR VAN DER WOULD

02:02 - 53.290 FOR NEW WERNER

02:02 - 54.920 AND WITH ME AT THE TABLE IS

02:02 - 56.570 JONATHAN BRUNO CO-COUNSEL IN

02:02 - 57.230 THIS CASE.

02:03 - 03.410 STATED IN THE CASE, YES.

02:03 - 07.150 PARTICIPATING THIS CASE AS

02:03 - 09.640 WELL AND ADVICE AND COUNSEL HAS

02:03 - 12.420 BEEN INVALUABLE. KNOWLEDGE OF

02:03 - 12.710 PRESSURE.

02:03 - 17.390 SO THIS IS A NARROW ISSUE

02:03 - 19.050 BEFORE THE PANEL AND WE THINK A

02:03 - 20.620 CLEAR ISSUE BEFORE THE PANEL.

02:03 - 22.400 THE FIRST IS WHETHER OR NOT THE

02:03 - 23.700 BORROWING STATUE BY ITS

02:03 - 25.810 PLAIN TERMS ENCOMPASSES BOTH

02:03 - 27.350 STATUTES OF REPOSE THE STATUTES

02:03 - 28.950 OF LIMITATIONS AND OUR

02:03 - 30.870 POSITION IS THAT WITH THE PLAIN

02:03 - 32.330 LANGUAGE INTERPRETATION.

02:03 - 33.880 THE ANSWER IS YES,

02:03 - 35.370 AND WE DON'T NEED TO GO ANY

02:03 - 36.870 FURTHER THAN THAT IN ORDER TO

02:03 - 37.790 ASCERTAIN THE

02:03 - 40.200 LEGISLATIVE INTENT AND WITH THE

02:03 - 41.550 SUPERIOR COURT DID AND WHAT

02:03 - 42.760 PLAINTIFF'S COUNSEL HAS ARGUED

02:03 - 45.500 BELOW IS THAT WHEN YOU LOOK AT

02:03 - 47.530 THE STATUE AND YOU SEE THE USE

02:03 - 48.060 OF THE WORD

02:03 - 50.870 A CRUEL THAT SOMEHOW LIMITS THE

02:03 - 52.660 SCOPE OF THE BROAD PHRASE

02:03 - 54.810 PERIOD OF LIMITATION. AND WE

02:03 - 56.900 THINK THAT IS ACTUALLY NOT A

02:03 - 58.260 CORRECT READING OF THE PLAIN

02:03 - 00.190 LANGUAGE OF THE STATUTE THAT

02:04 - 01.260 THE PHRASE.

02:04 - 04.030 PERIOD OF LIMITATION IS BROAD

02:04 - 06.250 ENOUGH TO ENCOMPASS BOWL AND IS

02:04 - 08.020 NO WAY IN NO WAY LIMITED

02:04 - 09.930 BY THE USE OF THE TERM OR

02:04 - 11.240 MODIFIED BY THE USE OF THE

02:04 - 13.850 TERM, A CRUEL THAT WORD

02:04 - 15.470 IS LIMITED SO

02:04 - 18.220 LEE TOO. THE LOCATION OF WHERE

02:04 - 20.170 THE CAUSE OF ACTION ROSE THE

02:04 - 20.770 PLANE IS.

02:04 - 26.640 >>WE MISS LANE WHICH

02:04 - 28.530 HAVE SAID THE PERIOD OF

02:04 - 31.310 LIMITATION OR FOES. AND THE

02:04 - 31.840 TITLE WOULD

02:04 - 33.530 HAVE SAID STATUTE OF

02:04 - 36.350 LIMITATIONS AND REPOSE YEAH, I

02:04 - 37.850 MEAN MORE PLAYING. NOW.

02:04 - 39.270 >>AND ACTUALLY IT

02:04 - 40.780 WHAT'S INSTRUCTIVE AND I THINK

02:04 - 42.030 HELPFUL FOR THE COURT HAS TO GO

02:04 - 43.490 BACK AND LOOK AT THE ACT IN THE

02:04 - 44.740 LEGISLATION WHICH ACTUALLY

02:04 - 46.520 ADOPTED THE STATUTE THAT THAT

02:04 - 49.010 NUMBER ONE 42 WHICH ADOPTED THE

02:04 - 51.050 JUDICIAL CODE AND THE CHAPTER

02:04 - 51.620 AT ISSUE WAS

02:04 - 55.310 CHAPTER 55. AND CHAPTER SUB

02:04 - 57.840 CHAPTER BE INCLUDES BOTH

02:04 - 00.510 LIMITATIONS ON FOREIGN CLAIMS

02:05 - 01.810 WHICH IS THE ACTUAL TITLE OF

02:05 - 02.930 THE STATUE, NOT THE SHORT

02:05 - 04.510 TITLE. AND IF YOU GO THROUGH

02:05 - 07.080 THAT. SUB TRAPPED OR B SECTION

02:05 - 09.370 5521 THE BORROWING STATUTE

02:05 - 10.840 INCLUDED WITHIN THAT SUB

02:05 - 14.170 TRAPPED OR IS SECTION 5536

02:05 - 16.010 DEALING WITH CONSTRUCTION

02:05 - 18.220 PROJECTS AND STATUTES OF REPOSE

02:05 - 18.930 AND YOU WILL

02:05 - 20.520 SEE THERE BUT THE TERM

02:05 - 22.210 LIMITATION IS ALSO USED IN THE

02:05 - 23.440 CONTEXT OF.

02:05 - 25.940 PERIOD OF LIMITATION THAT INTO

02:05 - 27.080 THAT ISSUE IN THE STATUTE OF

02:05 - 28.900 REPOSE SO TO THE EXTENT THAT

02:05 - 31.100 THE LEGISLATURE INCLUDED A

02:05 - 32.800 STATUTE OF REPOSE IN THE

02:05 - 34.900 SECTION OF THE STATUE

02:05 - 36.560 THAT DEALS WITH CIVIL ACTIONS

02:05 - 37.960 AND PARTY TO THE PROCEEDINGS

02:05 - 38.850 AND LIMITATIONS ON

02:05 - 40.390 FOREIGN CLAIMS. IT'S OUR

02:05 - 41.940 POSITION THAT THAT ACTUALLY

02:05 - 43.380 INSTRUCTS THE COURT AS TO THE

02:05 - 45.410 INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE TO IT

02:05 - 46.790 TO APPLY THE BROADER MEETING

02:05 - 47.940 THE PHRASE PERIOD OF

02:05 - 48.570 LIMITATION.

02:05 - 54.580 >>EXCEPT THE