Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): in the passage quoted above, we explicitly noted that “the government is not required to furnish the defendant with a list of witnesses in a non-capital case....” Id. at 1392 n. 4. Accordingly, we conclude that under Hicks and Rule 16, the district court exceeded its authority to the extent that it ordered the government to disclose a pretrial list of its non-expert witnesses. 2. Preclusion of Undisclosed Witnesses from the Government’s Case-in-Chief A district court has the power to exclude the government’s evidence as a sanction, but only for a “violation of any constitutional provision, federal statute, specific discovery order, or any other recognized right.” United States v. Schwartz, 857 F.2d 655, 658 (9th Cir.1988) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Gatto, 763 F.2d at 1046 (<HOLDING>); Fed.R.Crim.P. 16(d)(2)(C). Here, the district 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the trial court was within its discretion to exclude because the record showed considerable confusion on the part of the juror (B) holding that federal rule of evidence 408 authorizes the district court to exclude settlement letters (C) holding that the separationofpowers principle imposes significant limits on the district courts use of its supervisory powers to exclude governments evidence (D) holding it was not an abuse of discretion to exclude testimony (E) recognizing that courts have discretion to exclude evidence as a sanction for violation of a discovery order
Output (English): holding that the trial court was within its discretion to exclude because the record showed considerable confusion on the part of the juror