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: statement “is admissible only if it bears adequate ‘indicia of reliability.’ ” Id. In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004), the Supreme Court departed from its ruling in Roberts and established a new standard for determining when hearsay statements of an unavailable witness may be admitted as evidence against a criminal defendant consistently with the Confrontation Clause. The standard set forth- in Crawford actually expanded defendants’ confrontation rights beyond what was contemplated in Roberts. Compare Crawford, 541 U.S. at 53-55, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (requiring unavailability and a prior opportunity for cross-examination to admit testimonial hearsay statements of witnesses not appearing at trial), with Roberts, 448 U.S. at 72-73, 100 S.Ct. 2531 (<HOLDING>). Prior to the decision in Crawford, this Court 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that witness hearsay statements may be admitted whenever they bear sufficient indicia of reliability even without crossexamination (B) holding that the sixth amendment confrontation clause was not violated by the admission of hearsay statements under a georgia statute permitting an exception for statements by coconspirators where there was sufficient indicia of reliability supporting the truth of the statements (C) holding that the district court did not err in relying on hearsay evidence where the government offered reasons why its hearsay evidence had indicia of reliability and the court considered the reliability of the evidence in deciding the weight to give the hearsay evidence (D) holding that judges may consider any relevant evidence bearing some substantial indicia of reliability including reliable hearsay in a probation revocation hearing (E) holding that it would have been proper to admit party opponent admissions although they were based on multiple levels of hearsay and test their reliability on crossexamination but upholding the district courts exclusion of the statements where the hearsay statements lacked any factual content and lacked any indicia of trustworthiness

Output: (A)


Input: Consider Input: of discretion standard. See State v. Ross, 180 Ariz. 598, 603, 886 P.2d 1354, 1359 (1994). Statements stemming from a state actor’s custodial interrogation of a defendant are not admissible unless he is warned of his Fifth Amendment “right to remain silent” and that “anything said can and will be used against [him] in court.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 469, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 1625, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966). ¶ 19 The State concedes here that Appellant was in police custody when Nurse Geyer questioned him at the hospital. Even if a defendant is in custody, however, Miranda warnings are required when a med ical professional conducts an interrogation only if that medical professional is a state actor. See Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 468, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 1876, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981) (<HOLDING>). See also State v. Vickers, 129 Ariz. 506, 633 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing a public safety exception to the requirement that miranda warnings be given in order to use a suspects statement as evidence against him at trial (B) holding that phrase i know i have the right to remain silent together with phrase and knowing that anything i say may be used against me substantially complied with article 3822 warnings even though warnings failed to advise accused that his statement could be used against him at his trial or in court because it advised him his statement could be used against him in any type of context not just those mentioned in article 3822 subsection 2a1 and 2 (C) holding that a defendants jailhouse statements to a courtappointed psychiatrist could not be used against him in the penalty phase of a murder trial because the psychiatrist failed to give the defendant miranda warnings (D) holding that the warnings in their totality satisfied miranda (E) holding that the government cannot use postarrest silence against a defendant because miranda warnings give implicit assurances that silence will not be used against a person and accordingly it would be fundamentally unfair and a violation of due process to allow a defendants silence to be used to impeach him at trial

Output: (C)


Input: Consider Input: D.H.’s genitals on or about August 20, 2005 (count nine); and (8) indecency with a child for causing D.H. to touch part of his genitals on or about August 20, 2005 (count ten). Hiatt argues “Counts 7 and 8 are lesser included offenses of Counts 1 and 2” and “Counts 9 and 10 are lesser included offenses of Counts 3 and 4.” He thus concludes: “[s]ince there was no proof that separate acts of assault and indecency happened on August 20, 2005 or June 18, 2005, Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, and 10 all charged [him] with committing the same crime and result in multiple punishment.” Separate charges of indecency with a child and sexual assault of a child are proper when the evidence indicates separate offenses took place. See, e.g., Patterson v. State, 152 S.W.3d 88, 92 (Tex.Crim.App.2004) (<HOLDING>); Bottenfield v. State, 77 S.W.3d 349, 358 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that when two penetrations were separated by a short period of time two independent assaults occurred (B) holding that two breaking and entering incidents that were separated by two days of time were not pursuant to a single scheme even though both may have occurred during a continuous drinking binge the court equated single scheme with a temporally integrated episode of continuous activity (C) holding evidence that county employees engaged in unconstitutional assaults on two occasions insufficient to support finding such assaults were pursuant to county policy (D) holding that two robberies of different people at the same time are two separate offenses calling for two judgments and two sentences when the defendants were convicted of taking a grandfathers wallet pistol and car and taking a grandsons fishing equipment (E) holding that a passenger in a stopped vehicle was seized when she was escorted from the car to the front of two police cars that had their overhead lights turned on separated from the driver by two officers and separated from her purse which remained in the car


Output: (A)