TASK DEFINITION: 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.
PROBLEM: the crime charged. If the evidence is cumulative, the trial court should more closely scrutinize its prejudicial effect. If the evidence is necessary to prove an element of the charge, the trial judge may have erred in not sustaining the defendant's motion for a directed verdict of acquittal. Moreover, a defendant may have a valid objection, under federal rule 611(b), that the government's cross-examination exceeds the scope of the direct. These added considerations are necessary not only to limit the impact of rule 404(b) on rule 608(b), but also to limit the prejudicial effect of allowing the government to have the last say through evidence of a defendant's prior misconduct. Smith Grading & Paving, 760 F.2d at 581; see also United States v. Horton, 847 F.2d 313, 324-25 (6th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). The purpose of Rule 608(b) is to prevent
Holding statements: (A) holding that proponent of 404b evidence must identify a proper 404b purpose for admission that is at issue in the case (B) holding that evidence of threats or intimidation of a witness is admissible under rule 404b to show consciousness of guilt (C) holding that a new trial was the remedy for erroneous admission of rule 404b evidence (D) holding that rule 404b evidence is admissible in rebuttal (E) holding that admission of rule 404b evidence was proper

SOLUTION: (D)

PROBLEM: we held that, The penetration offense alleged in the first indictment clearly required a separate and distinct act (involving appellee's sexual organ with the child's female sexual organ) from the act alleged in the second indictment (which involved appel-lee's mouth with the child's sexual organ). In this case the second indictment alleged that appellee caused the child's sexual organ to contact his mouth ency with a child statute is the prohibited conduct. Appellant concedes to this view, the plain language of the statute supports it, and so does our caselaw. See Harris, 359 S.W.3d at 630 (stating that a grammatical analysis suggests that the unit of prosecution for indecency with a child by exposure is the exposure and, ultimately, adopting that viewpoint); Pizzo, 235 S.W.3d at 718 (<HOLDING>); see also Wallace v. State, 550 S.W.2d 89, 91
Holding statements: (A) holding that three phrases contained within the same subsection of the indecencywithaehild statute defined three separate offenses for juryunanimity purposes when separated in the disjunctive (B) holding that a similar statute created separate offenses (C) holding that three denied promotions over the course of three years where the decisions were made by three different selection officials and involved different qualifications were not sufficiently related to constitute a continuing violation (D) holding that the federal carjacking statute as it existed when the defendant was indicted established three separate offenses rather than a single offense with a choice of three maximum penalties and recognizing that this construction avoided serious constitutional questions on which precedent is not dispositive (E) holding that the legislature can define separate offenses within the same statutory subsection even if the acts are in close temporal proximity

SOLUTION: (A)

PROBLEM: John Patrick McClure, an Arizona state prisoner, appeals pro se from the district court's summary judgment in his 42 U.S.C. 1983 action alleging prison officials violated his Eighth Amendment rights by acting with deliberate indifference to his medical needs and inflicting cruel and unusual punishment. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1291. We review de novo. Sanchez v. Vild, 891 F.2d 240, 241-42 (9th Cir.1989). We affirm. The district court properly granted summary judgment on McClure's deliberate indifference claim because there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether the treatment chosen by prison officials was medically unacceptable. See id. at 242 (<HOLDING>). The district court properly granted summary
Holding statements: (A) holding that deliberate indifference to a serious medical need establishes an eighth amendment violation (B) holding that a sentence of incarceration would constitute deliberate indifference to defendants medical needs (C) holding that a difference of medical opinion was insufficient as a matter of law to establish deliberate indifference (D) holding that disagreement with a doctors judgment does not support a claim of deliberate indifference (E) holding that a difference of opinion about the best course of medical treatment does not amount to deliberate indifference

SOLUTION:
(E)