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: it was not prejudicial. The same analysis applies to Reyes. D. The Alleged Defects Before the Grand Jury Do Not Warrant Dismissal of the Indictment Ortiz argues that the Indictment should be dismissed because it is "the product of testimony and evidence that was incorrect and wholly insufficient to produce a valid bill of charges." (Ortiz Mem. at 17). Specifically, Ortiz takes issue with Special Agent Kolvek's grand jury testimony in which she testified that Ortiz had been that the jury could not have cured the defect, because the defect was insufficient evidence of a conspiracy in 2004, 2005, and 2006. The Court cannot, however, dismiss a facially valid indictment based on insufficient evidence. See United States v. Calandra, 414 U.S. 338, 345, 94 S.Ct. 613, 38 L.Ed.2d 561 (1974) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Casamento, 887 F.2d 1141,
Holding statements: (A) holding that grand jury witnesses may not refuse to answer questions on the ground that they are based on illegally seized evidence because any incremental deterrent effect which might be achieved by extending the rule to grand jury proceedings is uncertain at best (B) holding that the government is not required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury (C) holding that an in dictment valid on its face is not subject to challenge on the ground that the grand jury acted on the basis of inadequate or incompetent evidence (D) holding that facially valid indictment may not be challenged on the ground that it is based on inadequate evidence (E) recognizing that although no obstruction occurs when an individual lies to fbi agents who might or might not testify before a grand jury it may occur if the agents acted as an arm of the grand jury or indeed that the grand jury had even summoned the testimony of these particular agents
Output:
holding that grand jury witnesses may not refuse to answer questions on the ground that they are based on illegally seized evidence because any incremental deterrent effect which might be achieved by extending the rule to grand jury proceedings is uncertain at best