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. You should write an incorrect option. Even though there exist multiple wrong answers, we only need a single wrong answer. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.

Q: the direction that McDowell testified the assailant fled. Other evidence also confirmed that Hayward’s blood was found in the victim’s pockets and on the car. The discrepancies in McDowell’s testimony did not prove that he failed to observe or could not recall the most important points about which he testified. Hayward is correct that the trial court relied on McDowell’s testimony that Des-tefano said “I don’t have no more” in finding that the murder occurred during a robbery for pecuniary gain. However, that aspect of McDowell’s testimony never wavered. Although McDowell was older, in poor health, and possibly confused about some aspects of the event he witnessed, that does not provide a basis to disqualify him. See, e.g., Belcher v. Johnson, 834 So.2d 422, 422-23 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003) (<HOLDING>). Even insanity of a witness has been found to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that an elderly woman with dementia is not disqualified as a witness simply for those reasons (B) holding that an order was final for these identical reasons (C) holding that a forensic accountant is an expert witness not a lay witness (D) holding that juror was not automatically disqualified under beckett because of the jurors friendship with a law enforcement officer who was a key witness for the stale (E) holding outofcourt statements relating to reasons for investigation are not admissible where the reasons for the investigation are not at issue

A: holding that an order was final for these identical reasons
****
Q: likely causes of the engine failure are related to components of the oil delivery system, components of the cylinder assembly, cracked crankcase or an oil leak in general, etc.” As such, the Court finds that Mr. Klepacki’s opinion regarding the more likely causes of engine failure should be excluded. Plaintiffs Expert Donald Sommer Even assuming, without deciding, that Mr. Sommer is qualified to testify as an expert on piloting and accident reconstruction, including engine failure analysis, the Court must still find that the process he used in forming his expert opinion is suffi ciently reliable under Daubert and its progeny. See Quiet Tech. DC-8, Inc., 326 F.3d at 1342 (stating that “one may be considered an expert but still offer unreliable testimony”); cf. McCorvey, 298 F.3d at 1257 (<HOLDING>). The Court must also find that the testimony 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that federal rules of evidence require trial courts to hold hearingsreferred to as daubert hearingsto determine reliability of scientific expert testimony before admission at trial (B) holding that once an expert has passed rule 702s threshold of admissibility lingering questions or controversy concerning the quality of the experts conclusions go to the weight of the testimony rather than its admissibility (C) holding that experts causation opinion based on statements made by plaintiff was not inherently unreliable (D) holding that daubert does not create a new framework for analyzing proffered expert testimony based upon technical or other specialized knowledge  (E) holding that rjulings on admissibility under daubert inherently require the trial court to conduct an exacting analysis of the proffered experts methodology

A: holding that federal rules of evidence require trial courts to hold hearingsreferred to as daubert hearingsto determine reliability of scientific expert testimony before admission at trial
****
Q: by the State Police are accurate and need not be corrected. Citing Feigley v. Department of Corrections, 731 A.2d 220 (Pa.Cmwlth.1999), Dunbar contends that he has a due process right to an appeal hearing and that under Section 9151(b) of CHRIA, 18 Pa. C.S. § 9151(b), he has the right to have a proper party present at the hearing to defend its interests. Dunbar claims that he was denied due process because DOC, as the agency authorized to enforce and to interpret sentencing orders, was not a party to the proceedings. He asserts that the State Police is not the proper party to defend against the challenge because it is responsible, inter alia, for collecting fingerprint cards and maintaining criminal arrest histories. See Wagaman v. Attorney General, 872 A.2d 244 (Pa.Cmwlth.2005) (<HOLDING>). The State Police points out that pursuant to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted must have been a party to the prior action (B) holding that a proper party must have responsibility to administer or to enforce the law (C) recognizing court must enforce unambiguous contract according to its terms (D) holding that congress may not direct a state to enact or enforce a particular law or type of law (E) recognizing that prevailing party has remedies available at common law to enforce arbitrators award

A:
holding that the party against whom collateral estoppel is asserted must have been a party to the prior action
****