a

The correct citation is '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

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 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

Based on the provided context, the correct citation is 'a'. The sentence mentions the application of the case-within-a-case doctrine after the completion of a trial in the underlying case. Therefore, the reference is made to the specific cases where the doctrine was applied after the trial. 

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 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': '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

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': '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

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 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.”).'}