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.

Example Input: it may not be a room that is “used for detentions other than detentions under this section.” Tex. Fam.Code. Ann. § 52.025(a); Baptist Vie Le, 993 S.W.2d at 653-54 (taking juvenile arrested for murder to homicide division of police department violated Family Code requirements for handling child taken into custody). If, after taking a juvenile into custody, authorities do not take him to either a juvenile processing office or a statutorily designated alternative for questioning, but rather obtain a statement from the juvenile in an area used to interview adult suspects, that statement is inadmissible. Baptist Vie Le, 993 S.W.2d at 654-56; In re U.G., 128 S.W.3d at 799; see Tex. Fam.Code Ann. § 52.02(a); Salas v. State, 756 S.W.2d 832, 834-35 (Tex.App.-Corpus Christi 1988, no pet.) (<HOLDING>); see also Roquemore, 60 S.W.3d at 868; Marsh, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding statement inadmissible when instead of following section 5202 officers took juvenile first to police station where they obtained signed written statement from him before taking him to appropriate juvenile detention center (B) holding juveniles statement inadmissible when after being placed in custody police took juvenile to police station and held juvenile in area where adult suspects were held instead of taking juvenile to a juvenile processing office or any of the places listed as an alternative in section 5202 and placing juvenile in specifically designated office for juveniles (C) holding that defendant was arrested  when the police officer took physical custody of him by grabbing his arm and returned him to the hotel for detention there (D) holding witnesss formal signed written statement given at the police station one hour after the crime following structured police questioning was testimonial (E) holding that police executed an illegal arrest when they took a teenage suspect from his home and brought him in handcuffs to the police station for questioning
Example Output: (A)

Example Input: do not apply in ... [piroceedings relating to probation." - Ind. Evidence Rule 101(c)(@2). A probation revocation hearing is not to be equated with an adversarial criminal proceeding. Cox v. State 706 N.E.2d 547, 550 (Ind.1999) (citing Isaac v. State, 605 N.E2d 144, 149 (Ind.1992)). Rather, a revocation hearing is a narrow inquiry, and its procedures are more flexible than those of a criminal proceeding. Id. In revocation hearings, judges may consider any relevant evidence bearing some substantial indicia of reliability, including expert testimony and scientific evidence. Carter v. State, 706 N.E.2d 552, 554 (Ind.1999) (noting that it is beyond doubt that urinalysis has achieved a sufficient level of scientific reliability to be accepted into evidence); see also Cox, 706 N.E.2d at 550 (<HOLDING>); of - Pitman v. State, 749 N.E.2d 557, 559 
 Holding statements: (A) holding hearsay admissible in revocation hearings (B) holding that certified charging informations and police reports are deemed admissible in revocation hearings (C) holding that it is clear that hearsay evidence is admissible in a hearing on a motion to suppress (D) holding that neither rule 11 nor the protections of boykin apply to probation revocation hearings and observing that less process is due in prison disciplinary proceedings than in probation revocation hearings (E) holding that because the rules of evidence including the rule against hearsay do not apply to sentencing hearings the district court did not err in relying on hearsay in ordering restitution
Example Output: (A)

Example Input: this instruction. However, the court later stated that it had allowed the aforementioned questionin ounsel argued in his closing argument the very point which he contends he was denied the opportunity to make — that Elliott’s willingness to take a lie detector test demonstrated a lack of consciousness of guilt. The Commonwealth argues that the PCRA court’s denial of relief on this ineffectiveness claim is correct because the underlying claim of trial court error is meritless. First, it argues that this Court has already ruled that testimony regarding a defendant’s purported willingness to undergo a polygraph examination is inadmissible for the same reasons that a defendant’s refusal to take such test is inadmissible. Commonwealth v. Saun ders, 386 Pa. 149, 125 A.2d 442, 445-46 (1956) (<HOLDING>). The Commonwealth further submits that 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that when counsel denied the petitioner the right to appeal neither the strickland prejudice prong nor the harmlesserror test is appropriate (B) holding that it is not (C) holding that expert testimony should not be admitted as to a matter that is obviously within the common knowledge of jurors because such testimony almost by definition can be of no assistance (D) holding that an error is plain if it is clear or obvious (E) holding that because a polygraph test is not judicially acceptable it is obvious that neither a professed willingness nor a refusal to submit to such a test should be admitted because a defendants willingness is merely a selfserving act or declaration which obviously could be made without any possible risk
Example Output:
(E)