Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): along with three other Duke physicians wrote a published article concluding that at the time of the x-rays, Carnell more likely suffered from a blood clot rather than pneumonia. Additionally, there was other evidence presented that Camell’s lung difficulties were not related to pneumonia, but instead due to a blood clot. Given the convincing evidence presented at trial supporting the defendants’ negligence, we find that the jury argument had a harmless effect, if any on the jury’s verdict. Although these statements may have been improper to the extent that the trial court should have given a cautionary instruction, we are unable to conclude that they were of such gross impropriety to entitle the defendants to a new trial. See State v. Vines, 105 N.C. App. 147, 412 S.E.2d 156 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Thus, we reject defendants’ first assignment 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that prosecutors statements regarding his opinion as to the truthfulness of a defense witness considering the evidence against the defendant did not reach the level of the grossly improper statements which would require the trial court to correct them ex mero motu (B) holding that erroneous admission of improper and prejudicial evidence did not require reversal because the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty against the defendant even without the prejudicial testimony (C) holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to intervene ex mero motu to prevent closing argument by the prosecutor that the defendant lied during his testimony (D) holding that the prosecutors repeated comments that the defendant could have denied knowledge of the drugs or rebutted the trafficking charge by testifying were so prejudicial as to constitute plain error (E) holding that the prosecutors argument attacking the integrity of defense counsel was of such gross impropriety as to justify ex mero mo tu correction however in light of the strong and convincing case against the defendant we could not hold that the prosecutrixs improper comments were sufficiently prejudicial as to require a new trial
Output (English): holding that the prosecutors repeated comments that the defendant could have denied knowledge of the drugs or rebutted the trafficking charge by testifying were so prejudicial as to constitute plain error