Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): opposing party access to the terms of the agreement between the paying party and the compensated witness. Many courts, including courts in this Circuit, have found that a compensated fact witness is competent to testify as long as the fact that payments were made to that witness is disclosed to the trier of fact. See Jamaica Time Petroleum, Inc. v. Federal Ins. Co., 366 F.2d 156, 158 (10th Cir.1966) (finding that an agreement to pay a reward or “[t]he payment of the reward affects the credibility of the witness and the weight to be given his testimony. These factors are not determinative of competence to testify.”); Goldstein v. Exxon Research and Eng’g Co., No. 95 Civ. 2410, 1997 WL 580599, at *6 (D.N.J. Feb. 28, 1997); New York v. Solvent Chem. Co., 166 F.R.D. 284, 291 (W.D.N.Y.1996) (<HOLDING>). In sum, the “newly discovered evidence” put 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that evidence that the defendant and a witness sold drugs together was relevant to prove how the witness knew the defendant (B) holding that the constitution does not require the government to disclose impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant (C) holding that the appropriate sanction was to require the defendant to disclose the nature of the agreement with the witness (D) recognizing that informing the jury that testifying witness has agreed to cooperate with the government is a doubleedged sword as the existence of such agreement may suggest either that the witness will testify in accordance with the governments wishes regardless of the truth or that the witness will not he under threat of revocation of the agreement should the witness commit perjury (E) holding that due process requires a hearing appropriate to the nature of the case
Output (English): holding that the constitution does not require the government to disclose impeachment evidence prior to entering a plea agreement with a criminal defendant