Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): for the state, he had on several occasions aided in investigations and acted as an informant on numerous previous occasions. At the evidentiary hearing, Maxwell learned for the first time that Storch had assisted the LAPD’s forgery division in the investigation of multiple forgery cases pri- or to Maxwell’s trial. As this court explained in Benn, “[t]he state argues that this undisclosed evidence about [the informant’s] history was not material; however ... undisclosed evidence that an informant had previously participated in a ... investigation was important impeachment evidence that could have been used to discredit the informant’s trial testimony that he had not previously participated in that type of investigation.” Benn, 283 F.3d at 1058; see also Shaffer, 789 F.2d at 688-89 (<HOLDING>). In light of the import of Storch’s testimony, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding exclusion of testimony from defendants wife at defendants trial was not required under spousal testimony privilege where both spouses participated in unlawful enterprise of transporting illegal aliens and wifes testimony concerned matters prior to their marriage (B) holding that where defendant sought to exclude evidence prior to trial and again just prior to witnesss testimony at issue it was not necessary for defendant to object to testimony when it was actually put before jury (C) holding that prior adjudication barred a claim that arose out of the same transactions and that could have been raised in prior suit (D) holding that defendants undisclosed prior involvement in a state investigation contradicts his prior testimony and was material (E) holding that where a witness who testifies under oath and is subject to crossexamination in a prior state court proceeding explicitly refuses to answer the same questions at trial the refusal to answer is inconsistent with his prior testimony
Output (English): holding that where defendant sought to exclude evidence prior to trial and again just prior to witnesss testimony at issue it was not necessary for defendant to object to testimony when it was actually put before jury