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. 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:very well continue indefinitely. 34 . If that were the question, no petitioner would ever be entitled to habeas relief. This court has no doubt that the state court judges in Oklahoma, Colorado, Kan OCCA's unanimous concerns about Miller's and Macy's misconduct were "overwrought." Dissenting Op. at 765. The irony of the dissent's assessment speaks for itself. The dissent further asserts that our reading of the prosecutors' statements is "selective." Dissenting Op. at 759-60. It is the dissent, however, that in trying to rehabilitate the prosecutors' clearly improper comments on jury unanimity and nullification adopts a selective and stilted view of the record. Miller's and Macy's improper remarks about jury unanimity and nullification certainly do not stand alone. Hooks, 19 P.3d at 315 (<HOLDING>); id. (holding prosecutors erroneously argued
Holding statements: (A) holding prosecutors misstated the law as applied to oklahomas heinous atrocious or cruel aggravating circumstances and additionally encouraged the jurors to decide the question on the basis or sympathy for the victims (B) holding that the impact upon the victims is relevant to circumstances of the crime (C) holding that the unconstitutionality of the especially heinous atrocious or cruel instruction was compelled by godfrey (D) holding that the trial court did not err in using the particularized factual circumstances of the case namely the victims age as an aggravating factor (E) holding where reasonable difference of opinion as to whether the defendants act was the or a proximate cause of the injury the matter is for the jury to decide
Solution:
(A)