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:
by a party under this section which is not accepted and the party recovers a judgment which is greater than or equal to the amount specified in the offer of settlement, the party is entitled to interest at the annual rate of 12% on the amount recovered from the date of the offer of settlement until the amount is paid. Interest under this section is in lieu of interest computed under ss. 814.04 (4) and 815.05 (8). 2 The parties do not attempt to draw a distinction between a reasonable degree of professional certainty on the one hand, and a reasonable degree of professional probability on the other — Casimere v. Herman, 28 Wis. 2d 437, 445-446, 137 N.W.2d 73, 77 (1965), uses the phrases as apparent synonyms. See also Hennekens v. Hoerl, 160 Wis. 2d 144, 166, 465 N.W.2d 812, 821 (1991) 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that the phrases can be used interchangeably (B) holding that statements taken in violation of massiah can be used for impeachment purposes (C) holding floor can be used as deadly weapon (D) holding that rule 35a can be used to challenge sentences that are not authorized by the judgment of conviction (E) recognizing that there can be compelling circumstances in which a trial court can determine that neither party prevailed in a contract case

Ex Output:
(A)


Ex Input:
judge is provided for in Ind. P-C.R. 1, § 4(b), it is not automatic as Barclay asserts. Instead, “the rule requires the judge to examine the affidavit, treat the historical facts recited in the affidavit as true, and determine whether these facts support a rational inference of bias or prejudice.” Jackson v. State, 643 N.E.2d 905, 907 (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. denied (citing State ex rel. Whitehead v. Madison County Circuit Court, 626 N.E.2d 802, 803 (Ind.1993)). Barclay’s affidavit presents the fact that the trial court judge accepted his guilty plea without an adequate factual basis as his evidence of bias. Even taking this assertion as true, it does not support a rational inference of bias or prejudice. See Smith v. State, 613 N.E.2d 412, 414 (Ind.1993), reh’g denied, cert, denied (<HOLDING>); Jackson, 643 N.E.2d at 907 (holding that the 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the fact that a judge had ruled against the defendant is not a basis for finding the judge prejudiced (B) holding that where appellant moved to recuse trial judge from deciding the motion for new trial the judge of the administrative district was required to designate a judge to hear the recusal motion (C) holding that the fact that the judge received adverse publicity for granting postconviction relief in another case did not require the judge to recuse herself (D) holding that trial judge did not err in refusing to transfer to another judge defendants motion for substitution of judge for cause where defendants motion was not made in good faith (E) holding that counsel was not ineffective for not filing a motion to recuse the judge who presided at trial when the judge had also prosecuted a prior case that was used to enhance the current case

Ex Output:
(C)


Ex Input:
several claims of error are without merit or have been waived, there is no cumulative error. ¶ 25 WE CONCUR: MICHAEL J. WILKINS, Presiding Judge and NORMAN H. JACKSON, Judge. 1 . This Amended Opinion replaces the Opinion issued on December 10, 1998, in Case No. 971200-CA. 2 . "Precursor" can be one of several ingredients necessary for the production of methamphetamine. 3 . See United States v. Smith, 3 F.3d 1088, 1098 (7th Cir.1993) ("We have held that a consent to search is not a self-incriminating statement, and. therefore, does not amount to interrogation. This view comports with the view taken by every court of appeals to address the issue.”), cert. denied, Smith v. United States, 510 U.S. 1061, 114 S.Ct. 733, 126 L.Ed.2d 696 (1994); Cody v. Solem, 755 F.2d 1323, 1329 (8th Cir.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 833, 106 S.Ct. 104, 88 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that a consent to search is not an interrogation within the meaning of miranda  (B) holding that the first amendment protects communicative aspects of video games (C) holding miranda violation does not vitiate voluntary consent (D) holding fifth amendment prohibits comment on accuseds testimonial silence (E) holding miranda violation does not invalidate consent to search as fifth amendment only protects testimonial and communicative evidence

Ex Output:

(E)