Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): to defendant] by the trial judge submitting to the jury, with or without the presence of ... counsel, correct excerpts of limited trial testimony.” Id. at 617. Similarly, other circuits courts of appeal have found that even court staffs ex parte actions regarding the substantive law of the case may be harmless error. Notably, in United States v. Patterson, 644 F.2d 890 (1st Cir.1981), the First Circuit held that a court clerk’s unilateral action to deny the jury’s request to make transcripts of witnesses available to them was not prejudicial because only one witness’ testimony had been transcribed at that time, and it was “improbable” that the judge would have furnished that one transcript anyway. Id. at 897-98. See also United States v. Fulcher, 626 F.2d 985, 989 (D.C.Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). At the outset, given the controlling 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that sales puffery cannot constitute mail fraud to support rico claim (B) holding that a plaintiff cannot avoid the securities fraud exception by pleading mail fraud or wire fraud if the conduct giving rise to those offenses also amounts to securities fraud (C) holding that the prosecution may establish the intent element of mail fraud by proving that the defendant was reckless (D) holding direct misrepresentations were not required for mail fraud conviction (E) holding clerks action in giving requested mail fraud and contract documents to jury without consulting counsel or judge was error but defendant was not prejudiced because virtually all exhibits were either contract or mail fraud documents
Output (English): holding direct misrepresentations were not required for mail fraud conviction