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: prosecutorial statements indicated racial motivation (Batson, 476 U.S. at 97, 90 L. Ed. 2d at 88, 106 S. Ct. at 1723); whether the level of black representation on the venire as compared to the jury indicated racial discrimination (Mahaffey, 128 Ill. 2d at 413); or whether the crimes with which defendant was charged were interracial (Evans, 125 Ill. 2d at 66). While the trial judge's experience with local prosecutors and knowledge of local conditions are relevant factors in a prima facie case analysis, this court has never intimated that such considerations are dispositive of this issue. We find that the trial judge erred in failing to con sider all of the relevant factors in determining whether a prima facie case had been established. See People v. Holman (1989), 132 Ill. 2d 128, 173 (<HOLDING>). We thus conclude that the trial judge's
Holding statements: (A) holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence (B) holding that because the plaintiff was not disabled for the purposes of the ada this court need not to address the other elements of the prima facie case (C) holding district court did not abuse discretion in ruling moving party failed to make prima facie case to modify custody (D) holding that the trial judge erred in not considering factors other than the number of black venirepersons excluded in ruling on the defendants prima facie case (E) holding that a prima facie case is subject to independent review
Output:
holding the plaintiff satisfies the burden of a prima facie case by a preponderance of the evidence