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.

Ex Input:
Cote’s bias, Hayat alleges, first, that Cote made “several inappropriate racial and religious comments during deliberations.” Hayat presented evidence from Jurors L. and B., as well as from Juror H. via an affidavit by Ha-yat’s private investigator, that Cote made a “racial” comment during deliberations. B. declared that “[d]uring the deliberation process, ... Cote[ ] made the statement they all looked the same when wearing a costume or when put in a costume. I believe Mr. Cote made this statement in connection with a discussion of witness Naseem Khan’s claim that he had seen Ayman al-Zawahiri in Lodi.” Similarly, L. stated that “[djuring deliberations Mr. Cote made racial slurs. As an example, on one occasion ... he said in front of the entire group that they a 236-39 (10th Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>). Where, however, “a juror has been asked 
 Holding statements: (A) holding rule 16a1a does not include statements made by coconspirators even if those statements can be attributed to the defendant for purposes of the rule against hearsay (B) holding that rule 606b contains no exception for racially biased statements made during jury deliberations and expressing skepticism about whether constitutional concerns can ever override the rule (C) holding that federal rule of evidence 8034 the hearsay exception for statements made for medical diagnosis or treatment does not apply to statements made by doctors (D) recognizing rule (E) holding that the arkansas counterpart to cre 606b applies whether a verdict is reached or a mistrial declared and under the extraneous information exception allows jurors to testify about statements made during deliberations

Ex Output:
(B)


Ex Input:
of the documents. In his report, Gage stated only that the witnesses could not recall whether or not Peng raised his fist, but that they saw Peng grab the documents from Mei Hu. Peng has submitted a declaration by C. Peng that neither he nor Mr. Chi ever told anyone anything about what happened. As the district court noted, Peng has not cast doubt on the fact that, prior to Peng’s arrest, Jonathan Hu, acting as interpreter, told Gage that the two witnesses saw Peng grab the documents from Mei Hu. Peng has cast doubt on the identity of the witnesses and the veracity of Jonathan Hu, but Gage could not have known this at the time of the arrest. We are satisfied that Gage made a reasonable investigation under the circumstances before he arrested Peng. See Fuller, 950 F.2d at 1442-44 (<HOLDING>). We conclude that the presence of a factual 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that police officers have a duty to conduct an investigation into the basis of the witness report (B) holding that because the court could not consider police reports it could not rely on an attorneys argument based on the police report as the basis for determining the statutory basis for a conviction (C) holding that error in excluding a police officers report was harmless where the same evidence was presented by another witness (D) holding that an insurer has a duty to conduct an investigation reasonably appropriate under the circumstances (E) holding that witness statements in police report inadmissible

Ex Output:
(A)


Ex Input:
pill bottles, and that drug users “usually” buy one piece of crack cocaine, rather than more than one “individual sale-type pieces.” The investigator’s testimony, however, was an insufficient basis upon which to predicate Hicks’s conviction. Storing drugs in a pill bottle for quick disposal, and possessing an unidentified number of sales-size pieces of the drug, without more, equally supports the hypothesis that the person found with the drugs was a user rather than a dealer. See, e.g., Bethea v. State, 220 Ga. App. 800, 801-802 (1) (470 SE2d 328) (1996) (possession of rocks of cocaine, without more, was insufficient to support inference that defendant intended to distribute the cocaine); Anderson v. State, 215 Ga. App. 426, 427-428 (1) (451 SE2d 103) (1994) (physical precedent only) (<HOLDING>). Decided October 6, 2008. Ronald R. Parker, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding the large quantity of drugs sufficient evidence of intent to distribute (B) holding that there was sufficient evidence of intent to sell or deliver where the defendant was in possession of one large cocaine rock and eight smaller rocks (C) holding there was insufficient evidence to prove intent to distribute where the defendant dropped a plastic bag containing loose white rocks of cocaine and there was no other indicia of the defendants intent such as the drugs being packaged in smaller baggies (D) holding that defendants collective possession of plastic baggies beepers and scales  in conjunction with other evasive action  was sufficient evidence for jury to find conspiracy to distribute and possess cocaine beyond reasonable doubt (E) holding no unfair prejudice from admission of conviction for possession of 50 to 200 pounds of marijuana with intent to distribute as evidence of intent to distribute cocaine

Ex Output:

(C)