Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): on self-defense. Despite the trial court’s denial, during closing arguments Davis argued that he had acted in self-defense in an effort to negate the intent element of the offense: “Both people got knifed. Both people are fighting and both people are going for the neck where the carotid artery is, where the jugular vein is, and where someone is going to die if that’s cut.” During its rebuttal to Davis’s closing argument, the State said, “Ladies and gentlemen, if you look at this case and you look at all the facts surrounding this case, there’s no evidence to suggest that Latarsha Hampton wa statement that defense attorneys knew that a defendant accused of cocaine possession lived in a “crack house” was improper); Lopez v. State, 705 S.W.2d 296, 298 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1986, no pet.) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, we overrule Davis’s ninth point. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the prosecutors argument if it was there they can bring it to you was not an improper jury argument (B) holding improper counsels argument that plaintiff was entitled to something for manner in which defense was conducted (C) holding prosecutors argument that defense counsels goal was to keep evidence from the jury was improper (D) holding prosecutors argument that defense counsel was manufacturing evidence and thus suborning perjury was improper (E) holding on habeas review that counsels failure to object to improper argument at trial did not prejudice petitioner where other evidence supported a guilty verdict and the jury was told closing argument was not evidence
Output (English): holding prosecutors argument that defense counsel was manufacturing evidence and thus suborning perjury was improper