Instructions: 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: that Edmonds waived his objections to the striking of Ashe and Smith by requesting the trial court to reseat only juror Nelson. On the merits, the State does not dispute the trial court's finding as to Nelson but argues that the trial court implicitly found that Ashe and Smith were struck for race-neutral, non-pretextual reasons, that the court's finding was not clearly erroneous, and that the trial court appropriately remedied any harm by seating Nelson. III. We turn to the State's argument that petitioner waived his Batson argument. The State contends that because petitioner asked for one remedy and received the relief he requestedthe reseating of Nelsonhe cannot now challenge the court's remedial actions. See Klauenberg v. State, 355 Md. 528, 545, 735 A.2d 1061, 1070 (1999)(<HOLDING>). We hold that petitioner did not waive
Holding statements: (A) holding that where specific grounds for an objection are stated at trial all other grounds are waived and will not be considered for the first time on appeal (B) holding that the defendant who was indicted for first degree rape and convicted of sexual battery had no remedy on appeal when he requested that the erroneous lesser nonincluded charge be submitted to the jury (C) holding there are no grounds to appeal when defendant receives the remedy he requested from the trial court (D) holding there is no right to a specific dollar remedy (E) holding mandamus will lie to prevent trial court from exercising jurisdiction it does not have even if there is adequate remedy by appeal
Output:
holding that where specific grounds for an objection are stated at trial all other grounds are waived and will not be considered for the first time on appeal