In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision.  Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Input: Consider Input: erred in denying without a hearing his claim that trial counsel were ineffective because they “were under a conflict of interest in this case because counsels’ interest in spending the minimum amount of time on a case for which they were receiving no money conflicted with [Movant’s] desire that his case be fully litigated and investigated.... ” The State counters that the trial court did not clearly err in denying this claim because Movant failed to plead facts not refuted by the record demonstrating an actual conflict. To prevail on a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel based on a conflict of interest, a movant must show that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected counsel’s performance. Conger v. State, 356 S.W.3d 217, 221 (Mo.App.E.D. 2011) (quotation omitted) (<HOLDING>). “In order to prove a conflict of interest, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion to substitute counsel on the strength of gonzalezs sworn responses at the pleataking that no one was threatening him or forcing him to plead where the defendant alleged that his attorney forced him to plead guilty  and threatened him if he did not take the plea (B) holding that defendant failed to plead sufficient facts and instructing the trial court to dismiss the plaintiff from the case (C) holding that right to appeal claim of ineffective assistance of counsel alleging that counsel failed to convey plea negotiations timely and adequately inform of consequences of pleading guilty to jury for sentencing waived because plea of guilty to jury was independent of and not supported by alleged ineffective assistance of counsel claims (D) holding no coercion where counsel told movant his conviction was likely because movant stated he understood full range of punishment and no one threatened him to plead guilty (E) holding that the movant failed to establish that plea counsel coerced him to plead guilty to avoid taking the case to trial

Output: (E)


Input: Consider Input: would be dangerous, futile, or allow the destruction of evidence. Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U.S. 385, 394, 117 S.Ct. 1416, 1421, 137 L.Ed.2d 615 (1997). In this case, the trial court granted Broussard's motion in limine prohibiting any mention of what Officer Kwiatkowski learned to support the search warrant. Given this limited record, we cannot know whether one of the exceptions applies. Further, even if there was a violation of the knock-and-announce rule, the United States Supreme Court has not yet decided whether or to what extent the exclusionary rule should be used as a remedy. See Wilson, 514 U.S. at 937 n. 4, 115 S.Ct. at 1919 n. 4; United States v. Ramirez, 523 U.S. 65, 72 n. 3, 118 S.Ct. 992, 997 n. 3, 140 L.Ed.2d 191 (1998). 3 . See, e.g., Thompson, 9 S.W.3d at 814-15 (<HOLDING>). 4 . In 1991, Broussard pleaded guilty to a 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendant waived ineffective assistance claim based on trial counsels failure to emphasize certain evidence where amended motion for new trial did not assert claim of ineffectiveness on that ground and no argument related to the asserted ground was made at the motion for new trial hearing (B) holding that the combined effect of trial counsels errors should be considered (C) holding that to preserve an alleged error in the admission of evidence a timely objection must be made to the introduction of the evidence specific grounds for the objection should be stated and a ruling on the objection must be made by the trial court (D) holding ineffectiveness should be considered at hearing dedicated to considering all facts circumstances and rationale behind counsels actions including opportunity to explain why no objection was made in trial court (E) holding that an objection was adequate when the judge cut short the objection and the defendant was not afforded the opportunity to explain his objection fully

Output: (D)


Input: Consider Input: not include those UAs that did not produce a sample. Either , way, the record demonstrates that Casey's participation in the random UA testing program was minimal. 17 . See G.C., 67 P.3d at 651. 18 . AS 47.10.088(a)(2); Sherman B. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Office of Children's Servs., 290 P.3d 421, 431 (Alaska 2012). 19 . AS 47.10.088(b). 20 . Sherry R. v. State, Dep't of Health & Soc. Servs., Div. of Family & Youth Servs., 74 P.3d 896, 903 (Alaska 2003). 21 . We also note that the treatment assessor's initial assessment of Casey was based exclusively on information which Casey provided. Thus, to the extent the provider erroneously concluded that Casey did not need treatment, this error was presumably caused Office of Children's Servs., 212 P.3d 756, 765 (Alaska 2009) (<HOLDING>). 32 . Casey notes that OCS "only obtained one 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the juvenile court could have concluded that dhr had made reasonable efforts to reunite the father with the child (B) holding that dhr properly ended reunification efforts after eight months when previous reunification efforts had failed and the record indicated that further efforts would be unavailing (C) holding the evidence was sufficient to support termination under subsection n when after release from prison the defendant was advised of visitation but only visited with his children twice and made no further efforts to be involved with them and a case worker testified that all reasonable efforts were made to return the children to the parents (D) holding that even under the higher active efforts burden required in indian child welfare act icwa cases the fact that ocs failed to make efforts during three of the 26 months it was involved in the case was not determinative (E) holding that ocs made active efforts as required by icwa even where ocss efforts temporarily declined when father was incarcerated


Output: (E)