Detailed 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.
Q: the trial judge had seen the videotape of James Eas-ley impheating Woodard, the trial court's conclusion, without explanation or a hearing, that there was no "deceit or trickery" appears unsupported by the bare record before us. Whether the government indeed threatened Woodard with a murder charge if he did not testify before the grand jury, or diverted him from consulting with his attorney before he did so, or misled him into thinking he was not a target, are open questions of fact that must be tested at a hearing. Whether all or some of those alleged facts, even if true, undercut the voluntariness of his grand jury testimony despite the Miranda waiver, is a question that only a hearing can begin to answer. See Miller v. Fenton, 474 U.S. 104, 115, 106 S.Ct. 445, 88 L.Ed.2d 405 (1985) (<HOLDING>)". I'm sure that the government will object to
Holding statements: (A) holding that under 28 usc 2254d the ultimate question of the admissibility of a confession merits treatment as a legal inquiry requiring plenary review (B) recognizing the possibility that 28 usc 1331 supplies jurisdiction for violations of international law but not reaching the ultimate merits of the issue (C) holding that the ninth circuits decision exceeded the limits imposed on federal habeas review by 28 usc 2254d (D) holding that a claim brought in a pro se brief that the state court did not address was not adjudicated on the merits as required by 2254d (E) recognizing that the ultimate question of the voluntariness of consent is one of law
A:
recognizing the possibility that 28 usc 1331 supplies jurisdiction for violations of international law but not reaching the ultimate merits of the issue