a

a) In the provided case, the citation 'a' is correct. The case is United States v. Mitchell, 502 F.3d 931, 991, and it was decided by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. b) There is no specific requirement under federal law for the admission of execution impact evidence in criminal trials. However, some jurisdictions may have local rules or practices that allow for such evidence to be considered in certain circumstances. It is important to note that the specific facts and circumstances of each case will determine whether execution impact evidence is admissible or not. 

[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

The correct answer is 'a'. In the provided context, the citation 'a' is used to reference the case of McIntire v. Lee, where the Supreme Court of New Hampshire held that the case-within-a-case doctrine allows for the reconsideration of a case after the dismissal of an appeal. This decision established that the doctrine can be applied even after the completion of a trial in the underlying case. Therefore, the citation 'a' is applicable in this context. 

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

The correct citation is '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': 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

The correct answer is '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 

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

In this context, both citations 'a' and 'b' are valid as they refer to different aspects of the same legal principle. Citation 'a' emphasizes the application of the case-within-a-case doctrine in situations where the attorney's negligence causes harm to the client's interests after the completion of the underlying trial. It highlights the need for a trial to retry the client's cause of action if it was lost or compromised due to the attorney's negligence. On the other hand, citation 'b' focuses on the establishment of malpractice based on the introduction of evidence that was not presented during the underlying trial. It supports the argument that the attorney's negligence can be established through the introduction of such evidence. Both citations provide important legal precedents and principles related to the attorney's duty of care and the consequences of negligence in the legal process. 

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.”).'}