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.
--------
Question: the effect that the code-fendant’s confession must be disregarded in determining the defendant’s guilt or innocence is ineffective and cannot overcome the prejudicial effect of the incriminating statement on the jury. Id. at 124, 88 S.Ct. 1620. As such, the trial court’s curative instruction in the instant case was insufficient to cure the erroneous admission of Hertz’s statement to Hathcock. Nonetheless, this Court has also recognized that a Bruton violation does not automatically require reversal of an otherwise valid conviction but, rather, is subject to a harmless error analysis. See Farina v. State, 679 So.2d 1151, 1155 (Fla.1996) (citing Harrington v. California, 395 U.S. 250, 254, 89 S.Ct. 1726, 23 L.Ed.2d 284, (1969)); see also Franqui v. State, 699 So.2d 1312, 1322 (Fla.1997) (<HOLDING>); Smith v. State, 699 So.2d 629, 644-45 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that confrontation clause violation was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in part because it concerned the limitation of crossexamination of the prosecutions key witness (B) holding that the sixth amendment confrontation clause violation in that case was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and therefore did not require the conviction to be overturned (C) holding that a confrontation clause violation constituted harmless error (D) holding confrontation clause violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt and thus upholding firstdegree murder conviction (E) holding that testimony at trial in violation of defendants constitutional confrontation right was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt because the testimony was cumulative

Answer: holding that confrontation clause violation was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt in part because it concerned the limitation of crossexamination of the prosecutions key witness


Question: theory, once the police ... [make] a show of authority designed to produce a stop, the Fourth Amendment is implicated. If, in response to unjustified police actions, the suspect thereafter abandons the property he or she is carrying, then the property abandoned, be it illegal drugs, stolen goods, or other evidence, normally cannot be used against the accused. Clancy, The Supreme Court’s Search for a Definition of a Seizure: What is a “Seizure” of a Person Within the Meaning of the Fourth Amendment? 27 AvlCRIm. L.Rev. 619, 648 (1990). It is undisputed that Johnson denied ownership of the gun when Silvers showed it to him. Tr. at 53, 71. He can thus be fairly said to have exhibited the requisite intent to abandon the gun. See United States v. Veatch, 674 F.2d 1217, 1221 (9th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Canady, 615 F.2d 
 Holding statements: (A) holding due process is not violated when failure to receive notice is the result of attorneys decision to abandon law practice (B) holding that neither the language nor the legislative history of the fcpa indicates the congressional intent to create a private right of action (C) holding that a demal of ownership indicates intent to abandon (D) holding that shall generally indicates a mandatory intent unless a convincing argument to the contrary is made (E) holding use of word may generally indicates permissive rather than mandatory intent

Answer: holding due process is not violated when failure to receive notice is the result of attorneys decision to abandon law practice


Question: exhaustion of administrative remedies, petition for writ of mandamus may be filed in Leon County, Florida); Stovall v. Cooper, 860 So.2d 5, 7 (Fla. 2d DCA 2003)(petition for writ of mandamus as to gain time lies against the Department of Corrections in the county wherein which the DOC keeps its headquarters, i.e., Leon County). The record reflects that Borroto was sentenced to nine months in the Dade County jail in case number 01-25640 on July 22, 2002, and to nine months in the Dade County jail in case number 01-26153 on August 9, 2002. In each instance, the trial court ordered and the defendant received all credit for time served. The State concedes that Borroto has satisfied the sentence requirements in both cases, as he was entitled to 332 days for time served in case A 1995)(<HOLDING>). We note that based upon the attachments to 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that after exhausting administrative remedies if the defendant believes the department of corrections ruling is incorrect he may file a petition for writ of mandamus in the circuit court for the second judicial circuit leon county florida (B) holding that a plaintiff may not avoid exhausting the administrative remedies by requesting money damages (C) holding that a procedural default in exhausting administrative remedies bars relief in federal court (D) holding a claim not previously raised or ruled on by the circuit court was waived in an appeal from the denial of a writ of mandamus (E) holding that defendant seeking credit for time served must exhaust administrative remedies within the department of corrections prior to seeking judicial relief

Answer:
holding that a plaintiff may not avoid exhausting the administrative remedies by requesting money damages