Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): Source Book: Legislative History, Texts, and Other Documents 217 (Comm. Print 1976) [hereinafter Source Book ]. 25 . Throughout the legislative history of the Act, Congress recognized the need to protect civil rights claimants whose financial circumstances would foreclose litigation aimed at vindicating deprivations of important nonpecuniary rights. S.Rep. No. 1011, at 2, reprinted in- 1976 U.S.C.C.A.N. at 5910 (“In many cases arising under our civil rights laws, the citizen who must sue to enforce the law has little or no money with which to hire a lawyer. If private citizens are to be able to assert their civil rights ... then [they] must have the opportunity to recover what it costs them to vindicate these rights in court."); H.R.Rep. No. 1558, at 1, reprinted in Source Book 209 (<HOLDING>); Rivera, 477 U.S. at 577, 106 S.Ct. at 576 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that title viis broad venue provision was necessary to support the desire of congress to afford citizens full and easy redress of civil rights grievances (B) recognizing that it is important that the judicial remedy be full and complete and stating because a vast majority of the victims of civil rights violations cannot afford legal counsel they are unable to present their cases to the courts (C) holding that the illegality or unconstitutionality of a state or municipal tax or imposition is not of itself a ground for equitable relief in the courts of the united states in such a case the aggrieved party is left to his remedy at law when that remedy is as complete practicable and efficient as the remedy in equity (D) recognizing a criminal defendants right to present a complete defense (E) holding that the trial court violated the defendants allocution rights when the court in the defendants absence did not afford  defense counsel an opportunity to present information in mitigation of punishment
Output (English): holding that the trial court violated the defendants allocution rights when the court in the defendants absence did not afford  defense counsel an opportunity to present information in mitigation of punishment