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.

Input: Consider Input: it was given voluntarily. If these questions are resolved in favor of the State, then, without being advised of the court’s decision, the jury shall be instructed that they should decide whether in view of all the same circumstances the defendant’s confession is true. If they find that it is not true, then they must treat it as inadmissible and disregard it for purposes of discharging them function as fact finders on the ultimate issue of guilt or innocence. [Id. at 272, 294 A.2d 23.] See also State v. Thomas, 76 N.J. 344, 366, 387 A.2d 1187 (1978) (reaffirming Hampton principle that trial court is sole arbiter of voluntariness of defendant’s statements and rejecting defendant’s invitation to overrule decision); State v. Bowman, 165 N.J.Super. 531, 537-39, 398 A.2d 908 (App.Div.1979) (<HOLDING>). The New Jersey Rules of Evidence codified the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding prosecutors statement to jury on summation that trial court had previously found defendants two confessions voluntary constituted reversible error even though trial court gave hampton charge because it failed to instruct jury to disregard prosecutors statement (B) holding that trial courts jury charge did not amount to reversible error given that plaintiff failed to show she was prejudiced by inapplicable portion of trial courts charge (C) holding that improper statement was rendered harmless because the district court sustained the defendants objection  and admonished the jury to disregard the statement (D) holding no injury to ashley shown by statement to widow of murder victim that was not in evidence because trial court gave sua sponte instruction to jury to disregard statement and statement did not contradict ashleys testimony (E) holding that trial judges admonition of the jury to disregard prosecutors comments on the defendants failure to testify did not cure the error

Output: holding that trial courts jury charge did not amount to reversible error given that plaintiff failed to show she was prejudiced by inapplicable portion of trial courts charge


Input: Consider Input: employee.” Lenoir v. Roll Coater, Inc., 13 F.3d 1130 (7th Cir.1994) citing Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U.S. 248, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981). In this case, the Defendants state that Turner was fired because management honestly believed that Turner had directed threats towards other employees. The testimony of Gibbons, Woodward and Overstreet supports that story. The Court finds that the Defendants’ explanation has a reasonable basis in fact. The Court also finds that Turner’s alleged conduct, if true, would be sufficient to warrant discharge. There is no question that if the Defendants honestly believed that Turner actually made threats of violence, that Turner could be rightfully discharged. See Lenoir v. Roll Coater, 13 F.3d 1130, 1133 (7th Cir.1994) (<HOLDING>). 3. Pretext. Because the Defendants’ 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the employers failure to interact with the employee does not preclude the employee from losing on summary judgment because the employee must still prove that a reasonable accommodation could have been made (B) holding that if management honestly believed that the plaintiff employee possessed a weapon wielded at coworkers and made menacing comments then management had a reasonable explanation for discharging the plaintiff employee (C) holding that an employee could not establish pretext when the employer in good faith believed that the employee engaged in misconduct regardless whether the employee in fact engaged in the misconduct (D) holding that a partner in and accounting firm who brought an action under the age discrimination in employment act adea and the employee retirement income security act erisa was considered an employee because he was subject to the control of a management committee which acted in secrecy and had no bona fide ownership interest fiduciary relationship voting right or management control (E) holding that a plaintiff must comply with the notice of claim requirements in order to maintain an action against a government employee even if the plaintiff claims that the employee acted with fraud or malice

Output: holding that the employers failure to interact with the employee does not preclude the employee from losing on summary judgment because the employee must still prove that a reasonable accommodation could have been made


Input: Consider Input: offense” render the warrant general. A warrant must be read as a whole, see, e.g., Tracey, 597 F.3d at 154, and a supporting affidavit likewise “is to be read in its entirety and in a common sense, nontechnical manner,” United States v. Miknevich, 638 F.3d 178, 182 (3d Cir.2011); see also United States v. Johnson, 690 F.2d 60, 64 (3d Cir.1982) (“When a warrant is accompanied by an affidavit that is incorporated by reference, the affidavit may be used in construing the scope of the warrant.”). Accordingly, “such evidence of a criminal offense” refers not to any criminal offense, but to the criminal offense of unlawful contact with a minor defined throughout the remainder of the warrant and affidavit. See Andresen v. Maryland, 427 U.S. 463, 480-81, 96 S.Ct. 2737, 49 L.Ed.2d 627 (1976) (<HOLDING>). Karrer contends that the warrant failed to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the phrase together with other fruits instrumentalities and evidence of crime at this time unknown did not render a warrant general where context made clear that the reference was to false pretenses crime (B) holding that the inclusion of the phrase together with other fruits instrumentalities and evidence of crime at this time unknown did not render search warrants impermissibly general where it was clear from the context that the term crime in the warrants referred only to the crime of false pretenses with respect to the sale of one specific real estate lot (C) holding that counsel did not admit the defendant was guilty of a crime when counsel noted that if the evidence established the commission of any crime that crime was voluntary manslaughter not murder (D) holding the crime of conspiracy is committed or not before the substantive crime begins (E) holding prosecutor has discretion to charge defendant under general crime even though more specific crime exists


Output: holding that the inclusion of the phrase together with other fruits instrumentalities and evidence of crime at this time unknown did not render search warrants impermissibly general where it was clear from the context that the term crime in the warrants referred only to the crime of false pretenses with respect to the sale of one specific real estate lot