a

a 

[Wjhile the FDPA specifically provides for victim impact evidence, 18 U.S.C. SS 3593, there is no parallel provision allowing for execution impact evidence. Asking the jury to sentence a defendant to life is not mitigating evidence.

{'signal': 'no signal', 'identifier': '502 F.3d 931, 991', 'parenthetical': "approving of district court not allowing witnesses to offer opinions on what jury's verdict should be", 'sentence': 'United States v. Mitchell, 502 F.3d 931, 991 (9th Cir.2007) (approving of district court not allowing witnesses to offer opinions on what jury’s verdict should be); United States v. Caro, 461 F.Supp.2d. 459, 465 (W.D.Va.2006) (“[A]n express plea for mercy to the jury from a defendant’s witness is not mitigating evidence that could aid the jury in their decision making.”); see also Stenson v. Lambert, 504 F.3d 873, 892 (9th Cir.2007) (noting there are no federal cases requiring the admission of execution impact testimony); Jackson v. Dretke, 450 F.3d 614, 617-18 (5th Cir.2006); but see Jackson, 450 F.3d at 620 (Dennis, J., dissenting).'}

{'signal': 'see also', 'identifier': '504 F.3d 873, 892', 'parenthetical': 'noting there are no federal cases requiring the admission of execution impact testimony', 'sentence': 'United States v. Mitchell, 502 F.3d 931, 991 (9th Cir.2007) (approving of district court not allowing witnesses to offer opinions on what jury’s verdict should be); United States v. Caro, 461 F.Supp.2d. 459, 465 (W.D.Va.2006) (“[A]n express plea for mercy to the jury from a defendant’s witness is not mitigating evidence that could aid the jury in their decision making.”); see also Stenson v. Lambert, 504 F.3d 873, 892 (9th Cir.2007) (noting there are no federal cases requiring the admission of execution impact testimony); Jackson v. Dretke, 450 F.3d 614, 617-18 (5th Cir.2006); but see Jackson, 450 F.3d at 620 (Dennis, J., dissenting).'}

b

a 

Indeed, in other cases, outside of Maryland, the doctrine has been applied after the completion of a trial in the underlying case.

{'signal': 'see also', 'identifier': '626 N.W.2d 281, 287', 'parenthetical': '"The case- within-a-case doctrine requires that, but for the attorney\'s alleged negligence, litigation would have ended with a more favorable result for the client."', 'sentence': 'See McIntire v. Lee, 149 N.H. 160, 816 A.2d 993 (2003) (malpractice established after jury determined that evidence that was not introduced in the underlying trial was relevant and should have been introduced); Prince v. Garruto, Galex & Cantor, Esqs., 346 N.J.Super. 180, 787 A.2d 245 (App.Div.2001) (ordering a trial on the merits to determine when omission of a witness in previous trial constituted malpractice); see also Meyer v. Maus, 626 N.W.2d 281, 287 (N.D.2001) (“The case- within-a-case doctrine requires that, but for the attorney’s alleged negligence, litigation would have ended with a more favorable result for the client.”); Aubin v. Barton, 123 Wash. App. 592, 98 P.3d 126, 134 (2004) (“[T]he trial court hearing the malpractice claim retries, or tries for the first time, the client’s cause of action that the client contends was lost or compromised by the attorney’s negligence, and the trier of fact decides whether the client would have fared better but for the alleged mishandling.”).'}

{'signal': 'see', 'identifier': None, 'parenthetical': 'malpractice established after jury determined that evidence that was not introduced in the underlying trial was relevant and should have been introduced', 'sentence': 'See McIntire v. Lee, 149 N.H. 160, 816 A.2d 993 (2003) (malpractice established after jury determined that evidence that was not introduced in the underlying trial was relevant and should have been introduced); Prince v. Garruto, Galex & Cantor, Esqs., 346 N.J.Super. 180, 787 A.2d 245 (App.Div.2001) (ordering a trial on the merits to determine when omission of a witness in previous trial constituted malpractice); see also Meyer v. Maus, 626 N.W.2d 281, 287 (N.D.2001) (“The case- within-a-case doctrine requires that, but for the attorney’s alleged negligence, litigation would have ended with a more favorable result for the client.”); Aubin v. Barton, 123 Wash. App. 592, 98 P.3d 126, 134 (2004) (“[T]he trial court hearing the malpractice claim retries, or tries for the first time, the client’s cause of action that the client contends was lost or compromised by the attorney’s negligence, and the trier of fact decides whether the client would have fared better but for the alleged mishandling.”).'}

a

In the provided context, the citation 'a' is correct. The sentence 'See McIntire v. Lee, 149 N.H. 160, 816 A.2d 993 (2003) (malpractice established after jury determined that evidence that was not introduced in the underlying trial was relevant and should have been introduced)' indicates that the court referred to this case while discussing the application of the case-within-a-case doctrine. Therefore, the citation 'a' is associated with the mentioned case. 

Indeed, in other cases, outside of Maryland, the doctrine has been applied after the completion of a trial in the underlying case.

{'signal': 'see', 'identifier': None, 'parenthetical': 'malpractice established after jury determined that evidence that was not introduced in the underlying trial was relevant and should have been introduced', 'sentence': 'See McIntire v. Lee, 149 N.H. 160, 816 A.2d 993 (2003) (malpractice established after jury determined that evidence that was not introduced in the underlying trial was relevant and should have been introduced); Prince v. Garruto, Galex & Cantor, Esqs., 346 N.J.Super. 180, 787 A.2d 245 (App.Div.2001) (ordering a trial on the merits to determine when omission of a witness in previous trial constituted malpractice); see also Meyer v. Maus, 626 N.W.2d 281, 287 (N.D.2001) (“The case- within-a-case doctrine requires that, but for the attorney’s alleged negligence, litigation would have ended with a more favorable result for the client.”); Aubin v. Barton, 123 Wash. App. 592, 98 P.3d 126, 134 (2004) (“[T]he trial court hearing the malpractice claim retries, or tries for the first time, the client’s cause of action that the client contends was lost or compromised by the attorney’s negligence, and the trier of fact decides whether the client would have fared better but for the alleged mishandling.”).'}

{'signal': 'see also', 'identifier': None, 'parenthetical': '"[T]he trial court hearing the malpractice claim retries, or tries for the first time, the client\'s cause of action that the client contends was lost or compromised by the attorney\'s negligence, and the trier of fact decides whether the client would have fared better but for the alleged mishandling."', 'sentence': 'See McIntire v. Lee, 149 N.H. 160, 816 A.2d 993 (2003) (malpractice established after jury determined that evidence that was not introduced in the underlying trial was relevant and should have been introduced); Prince v. Garruto, Galex & Cantor, Esqs., 346 N.J.Super. 180, 787 A.2d 245 (App.Div.2001) (ordering a trial on the merits to determine when omission of a witness in previous trial constituted malpractice); see also Meyer v. Maus, 626 N.W.2d 281, 287 (N.D.2001) (“The case- within-a-case doctrine requires that, but for the attorney’s alleged negligence, litigation would have ended with a more favorable result for the client.”); Aubin v. Barton, 123 Wash. App. 592, 98 P.3d 126, 134 (2004) (“[T]he trial court hearing the malpractice claim retries, or tries for the first time, the client’s cause of action that the client contends was lost or compromised by the attorney’s negligence, and the trier of fact decides whether the client would have fared better but for the alleged mishandling.”).'}

a

a 

Indeed, in other cases, outside of Maryland, the doctrine has been applied after the completion of a trial in the underlying case.

{'signal': 'see', 'identifier': None, 'parenthetical': 'malpractice established after jury determined that evidence that was not introduced in the underlying trial was relevant and should have been introduced', 'sentence': 'See McIntire v. Lee, 149 N.H. 160, 816 A.2d 993 (2003) (malpractice established after jury determined that evidence that was not introduced in the underlying trial was relevant and should have been introduced); Prince v. Garruto, Galex & Cantor, Esqs., 346 N.J.Super. 180, 787 A.2d 245 (App.Div.2001) (ordering a trial on the merits to determine when omission of a witness in previous trial constituted malpractice); see also Meyer v. Maus, 626 N.W.2d 281, 287 (N.D.2001) (“The case- within-a-case doctrine requires that, but for the attorney’s alleged negligence, litigation would have ended with a more favorable result for the client.”); Aubin v. Barton, 123 Wash. App. 592, 98 P.3d 126, 134 (2004) (“[T]he trial court hearing the malpractice claim retries, or tries for the first time, the client’s cause of action that the client contends was lost or compromised by the attorney’s negligence, and the trier of fact decides whether the client would have fared better but for the alleged mishandling.”).'}

{'signal': 'see also', 'identifier': '98 P.3d 126, 134', 'parenthetical': '"[T]he trial court hearing the malpractice claim retries, or tries for the first time, the client\'s cause of action that the client contends was lost or compromised by the attorney\'s negligence, and the trier of fact decides whether the client would have fared better but for the alleged mishandling."', 'sentence': 'See McIntire v. Lee, 149 N.H. 160, 816 A.2d 993 (2003) (malpractice established after jury determined that evidence that was not introduced in the underlying trial was relevant and should have been introduced); Prince v. Garruto, Galex & Cantor, Esqs., 346 N.J.Super. 180, 787 A.2d 245 (App.Div.2001) (ordering a trial on the merits to determine when omission of a witness in previous trial constituted malpractice); see also Meyer v. Maus, 626 N.W.2d 281, 287 (N.D.2001) (“The case- within-a-case doctrine requires that, but for the attorney’s alleged negligence, litigation would have ended with a more favorable result for the client.”); Aubin v. Barton, 123 Wash. App. 592, 98 P.3d 126, 134 (2004) (“[T]he trial court hearing the malpractice claim retries, or tries for the first time, the client’s cause of action that the client contends was lost or compromised by the attorney’s negligence, and the trier of fact decides whether the client would have fared better but for the alleged mishandling.”).'}

a

a) The citation 'a' refers to the first set of cases where the doctrine of ex debito justitiae was applied after the completion of a trial in the underlying case. These cases are: McIntire v. Lee, Prince v. Garruto, and Meyer v. Maus. In these cases, the courts recognized the need for a trial on the merits to determine when omission of a witness in the previous trial constituted malpractice. b) The citation 'b' refers to the second set of cases where the doctrine of ex debito justitiae was applied after the completion of a trial in the underlying case. These cases are: Aubin v. Barton and see also Meyer v. Maus. In these cases, the courts relied on the principle that, but for the attorney's alleged negligence, litigation would have ended with a more favorable result for the client. 

Indeed, in other cases, outside of Maryland, the doctrine has been applied after the completion of a trial in the underlying case.

{'signal': 'see', 'identifier': None, 'parenthetical': 'malpractice established after jury determined that evidence that was not introduced in the underlying trial was relevant and should have been introduced', 'sentence': 'See McIntire v. Lee, 149 N.H. 160, 816 A.2d 993 (2003) (malpractice established after jury determined that evidence that was not introduced in the underlying trial was relevant and should have been introduced); Prince v. Garruto, Galex & Cantor, Esqs., 346 N.J.Super. 180, 787 A.2d 245 (App.Div.2001) (ordering a trial on the merits to determine when omission of a witness in previous trial constituted malpractice); see also Meyer v. Maus, 626 N.W.2d 281, 287 (N.D.2001) (“The case- within-a-case doctrine requires that, but for the attorney’s alleged negligence, litigation would have ended with a more favorable result for the client.”); Aubin v. Barton, 123 Wash. App. 592, 98 P.3d 126, 134 (2004) (“[T]he trial court hearing the malpractice claim retries, or tries for the first time, the client’s cause of action that the client contends was lost or compromised by the attorney’s negligence, and the trier of fact decides whether the client would have fared better but for the alleged mishandling.”).'}

{'signal': 'see also', 'identifier': '626 N.W.2d 281, 287', 'parenthetical': '"The case- within-a-case doctrine requires that, but for the attorney\'s alleged negligence, litigation would have ended with a more favorable result for the client."', 'sentence': 'See McIntire v. Lee, 149 N.H. 160, 816 A.2d 993 (2003) (malpractice established after jury determined that evidence that was not introduced in the underlying trial was relevant and should have been introduced); Prince v. Garruto, Galex & Cantor, Esqs., 346 N.J.Super. 180, 787 A.2d 245 (App.Div.2001) (ordering a trial on the merits to determine when omission of a witness in previous trial constituted malpractice); see also Meyer v. Maus, 626 N.W.2d 281, 287 (N.D.2001) (“The case- within-a-case doctrine requires that, but for the attorney’s alleged negligence, litigation would have ended with a more favorable result for the client.”); Aubin v. Barton, 123 Wash. App. 592, 98 P.3d 126, 134 (2004) (“[T]he trial court hearing the malpractice claim retries, or tries for the first time, the client’s cause of action that the client contends was lost or compromised by the attorney’s negligence, and the trier of fact decides whether the client would have fared better but for the alleged mishandling.”).'}

b

a) The citation 'a' refers to the first set of citations provided in the context, which include cases where the doctrine of double jeopardy was applied after the completion of a trial in the underlying case. These cases are from New Hampshire, New Jersey, and North Dakota. b) The citation 'b' refers to the second set of citations provided in the context, which include cases where the malpractice claim was heard by the same court as the underlying case, and the court decided to retry the malpractice claim based on the evidence presented in the underlying trial. These cases are from Washington state. 

Indeed, in other cases, outside of Maryland, the doctrine has been applied after the completion of a trial in the underlying case.

{'signal': 'see also', 'identifier': None, 'parenthetical': '"[T]he trial court hearing the malpractice claim retries, or tries for the first time, the client\'s cause of action that the client contends was lost or compromised by the attorney\'s negligence, and the trier of fact decides whether the client would have fared better but for the alleged mishandling."', 'sentence': 'See McIntire v. Lee, 149 N.H. 160, 816 A.2d 993 (2003) (malpractice established after jury determined that evidence that was not introduced in the underlying trial was relevant and should have been introduced); Prince v. Garruto, Galex & Cantor, Esqs., 346 N.J.Super. 180, 787 A.2d 245 (App.Div.2001) (ordering a trial on the merits to determine when omission of a witness in previous trial constituted malpractice); see also Meyer v. Maus, 626 N.W.2d 281, 287 (N.D.2001) (“The case- within-a-case doctrine requires that, but for the attorney’s alleged negligence, litigation would have ended with a more favorable result for the client.”); Aubin v. Barton, 123 Wash. App. 592, 98 P.3d 126, 134 (2004) (“[T]he trial court hearing the malpractice claim retries, or tries for the first time, the client’s cause of action that the client contends was lost or compromised by the attorney’s negligence, and the trier of fact decides whether the client would have fared better but for the alleged mishandling.”).'}

{'signal': 'see', 'identifier': None, 'parenthetical': 'malpractice established after jury determined that evidence that was not introduced in the underlying trial was relevant and should have been introduced', 'sentence': 'See McIntire v. Lee, 149 N.H. 160, 816 A.2d 993 (2003) (malpractice established after jury determined that evidence that was not introduced in the underlying trial was relevant and should have been introduced); Prince v. Garruto, Galex & Cantor, Esqs., 346 N.J.Super. 180, 787 A.2d 245 (App.Div.2001) (ordering a trial on the merits to determine when omission of a witness in previous trial constituted malpractice); see also Meyer v. Maus, 626 N.W.2d 281, 287 (N.D.2001) (“The case- within-a-case doctrine requires that, but for the attorney’s alleged negligence, litigation would have ended with a more favorable result for the client.”); Aubin v. Barton, 123 Wash. App. 592, 98 P.3d 126, 134 (2004) (“[T]he trial court hearing the malpractice claim retries, or tries for the first time, the client’s cause of action that the client contends was lost or compromised by the attorney’s negligence, and the trier of fact decides whether the client would have fared better but for the alleged mishandling.”).'}