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.
Problem:Through these amendments, Congress increased the liability imposed by the statute from double to treble damages, raised the civil penalty limit by five times, and added section 3730(d)(5), which provides for attorneys' fees to successful claimants. See 31 U.S.C. 3729(a), 3730(d)(5). In light of these significant amendments, courts were forced to decide whether Congress changed the remedial nature of the statute, and if so, whether municipalities were encompassed within its scope, b. Pre-Stevens FCA jurisprudence Before the Supreme Court decided Stevens, the lower courts were split over whether states and local governmental entities were "persons" capable of being sued under the FCA. Compare United States ex rel. Dunleavy v. County of Delaware, 123 F.3d 734, 738-40 (3d Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>); United States ex rel. Garibaldi v. Orleans
Holding statements: (A) holding that qui tam relator had right to proceed against county defendant (B) holding that a defendant has a right to proceed pro se at trial (C) holding that right of selfrepresentation did not attach because defendant had made no indication of his desire to proceed without counsel (D) holding that a criminal defendant has a constitutional right to proceed without counsel when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so (E) holding that claim that counsel was ineffective for allowing defendant to proceed while incompetent was facially insufficient where defendant did not allege he actually was incompetent to proceed to trial or insane at the time of his offense
Solution:
holding that a defendant has a right to proceed pro se at trial