Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): application of our law. The analogy of D.C.Code offenses to federal offenses is also used to justify the continued trial of D.C.Code offenders in the federal courts in the District, notwithstanding the conferral of all local criminal jurisdiction on the Superior Court. Under D.C.Code § 11-502(3) (1982), a D.C.Code violator also charged with a federal offense may be tried in a joint indictment in federal court. Even if the federal charge is ultimately dismissed, the federal court tries these offenders using federal standards. See United States v. Brown, 157 U.S.App.D.C. 311, 314-15, 483 F.2d 1314, 1317-18 (1973) (applying federal bail rules to defendant charged with D.C.Code offenses tried in federal court); United States v. Belt, 169 U.S.App.D.C. 1, 8, 14, 514 F.2d 837, 844, 850 (1975) (<HOLDING>). The result may be a difference in outcome in 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that federal evidentiary standard for impeachment by prior conviction should apply to dccode offenders tried in federal court (B) holding that a transferee federal court should apply its interpretations of federal law not the constructions of federal law of the transferor circuit (C) holding that the federal register notice requirements do not apply to federal criminal statutes (D) holding that federal courts should apply state substantive law (E) holding that plaintiffs noncompliance with dccode  12309 cannot bar federal claims
Output (English): holding that federal courts should apply state substantive law