Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Moreover, even though E.C. was the only eyewitness, her testimony about the assault was cumulative of the testimony of Nurse Bufford and Officer Horace, thus lessening the importance of E.C.’s testimony about the assault. Finally, E.C. gave a statement about the assault to Officer Horace and Nurse Buf-ford immediately after the assault occurred, but before she was arrested. Thus, even if her testimony had been important to the State’s case, her testimony about the assault comports with what she told Nurse Bufford and Officer Horace after the assault but before she was arrested and placed on deferred-adjudication probation; she could have gained no advantage for herself merely by repeating that testimony. See Hall v. State, 663 S.W.2d 154, 158 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1983, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, appellant presented no evidence to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that trial court did not err in refusing to parse witnesss testimony or to have it replayed in its entirety (B) holding that where no description of witnesss evidence offered and no suggestion made as to how testimony would affect defendants case trial court did not err in refusing to issue certificate ordering witnesss attendance (C) holding that a witnesss testimony or an exhibit may not explicitly and directly contain an opinion as to a trial witnesss credibility (D) holding that a trial witnesss testimony as to the credibility of another witness was prejudicial error (E) holding that trial court did not err in refusing to allow defendant to introduce evidence of witnesss pending indictment when witnesss testimony regarding defendants participation in murder was virtually identical to witnesss written statement which was sworn to on day of murder and prior to offense for which witness was indicted
Output (English): holding that a witnesss testimony or an exhibit may not explicitly and directly contain an opinion as to a trial witnesss credibility