With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". dogs alerted to defendant’s scent and weak corroborating evidence legally insufficient to support capital-murder conviction); Richard Winfrey v. State, 323 S.W.3d 875 (Tex.Crim.App.2010). (same). 41 . Coble v. State, 330 S.W.3d 253, 270-80 (Tex.Crim.App.2010) (forensic psychiatrist’s testimony concerning defendant's future dangerousness was not sufficiently reliable to be admissible). 42 . Leonard v. State, 385 S.W.3d 570 (Tex.Crim.App.2012) (reversing probation revocation based on therapist’s testimony that defendant failed to "show no deception” on five polygraph tests). 43 . Gonzales v. State, No. PD-1661-09, 2010 WL 711783 (Tex.Crim.App. Feb. 24, 2010) (not designated for publication) (Cochran, J., concurring), 44 . See, e.g., Ex parte Coty, 432 S.W.3d 341, 343 (Tex.Crim.App.2014) (<HOLDING>). 45 . That bill, introduced and then amended

A: holding that the government did not have to prove that the defendant knew that his acts violated the clean water act but merely that he was aware of the conduct that resulted in the permits violation
B: holding that a defendant may prove a dueprocess violation caused by the malfeasance of a forensic laboratory technician if he establishes an inference of falsity and proves that the false evidence was material to his conviction
C: holding that a state prisoner must bring his claim in habeas only if by prevailing he would necessarily prove the unlawfulness of his conviction or confinement
D: holding that an award of restitution is only for the loss caused by the specific conduct that is the basis of the offense of conviction
B.