Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): evidence may be allowed when, as here, it bears on the motive and state of mind in relation to an avoidance of apprehension during immediate flight from a crime and is found to be ‘needed as background material’ or to ‘complete the narrative of the episode’ ”). See also Yapor v. Mazzuca, No. 04 Civ. 7966, 2005 WL 894918, at *17 (S.D.N.Y. Apr.19, 2005)(“the fact of Yapor’s wife’s arrest on a drug charge completed the narrative and the trial court was within its discretion under New York law to admit it.”) (citations omitted). Evidence of a defendant’s conduct that demonstrates a “guilty mind including evidence of coercion and harassment of a witness” is also admissible. Charles, 516 F.Supp.2d at 217 (citing People v. Plummer, 36 N.Y.2d 161, 365 N.Y.S.2d 842, 325 N.E.2d 161 (1975) (<HOLDING>)). 3. Contrary to, or an Unreasonable 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that even evidence of a defendants and a witnesss prior bad acts was admissible to show inter alia the defendants familiarity with the witness (B) holding that an expert witnesss testimony that the behavior of an alleged child victim of sexual abuse is consistent with behavior observed in sexually abused children is admissible under the ohio rules of evidence (C) holding that evidence of defendants threatening behavior toward a witness was admissible (D) holding that defendant waived his confrontation rights by threatening witness not to testify (E) holding that the defendants previous threatening behavior toward the victim was highly probative of his motive
Output (English): holding that defendant waived his confrontation rights by threatening witness not to testify