Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Dec. 20, 2001) (Fed. R. Civ.P. 27); Apple Computer, Inc. v. Doe 1, No. 1-04 — CV-032178, 2005 WL 578641, at *2 (Cal.Super.Ct. Mar. 11, 2005) (California discovery statute). 4 . See 4 H.P.N. Gammel, The Laws of Texas 1822-1897, at 982-83. See Tex.R. Civ. P. 270 (allowing court discretion to permit "additional evidence” to be offered); TexR. Civ. P. 286 (stating that ”[a]d-ditional argument may be allowed in the discretion of the court” in event jury receives further instructions after having retired); Tex.R. Evid. 611(a) (giving court "reasonable control” over interrogation of witnesses and presentation of evidence); Tex. Employers Ins. Ass’n v. Loesch, 538 S.W.2d 435, 440 (Tex.Civ.App.-Waco 1976, writ ref'd n.r.e.) (<HOLDING>). The trial court’s authority to dismiss for 
 Holding statements: (A) holding trial court erred in overruling defendants objection on same ground as asserted here to trial courts voir dire hypothetical that was similarly worded to states hypothetical here (B) holding failure to take action may have some bearing on good faith (C) holding that a defendant who preemptively introduces evidence of a prior conviction on direct examination may not on appeal claim that the admission of such evidence was error (D) holding that court may place some limits on voir dire examination (E) holding that no manifest injustice resulted although the prosecutor did misstate the law at one point because the correct standard of proof was restated multiple other times during voir dire and in argument and the jury was properly instructed
Output (English): holding that no manifest injustice resulted although the prosecutor did misstate the law at one point because the correct standard of proof was restated multiple other times during voir dire and in argument and the jury was properly instructed