With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". id., cmt. See also 2k Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 407 (3d ed. 2000) ("[I]t is improper to put a witness on the stand merely to have him exercise before the jury his privilege against self-incrimination. ’'). 25 . We note, however, that Simons may not have been able to predict that the trial court would have permitted introduction of this evidence. In New York, motive is not an element of murder, see People v. Caban, 5 N.Y.3d 143, 2005 WL 1397044, at *5 (June 14, 2005); People v. Marin, 65 N.Y.2d 741, 745, 492 N.Y.S.2d 16, 481 N.E.2d 556 (1985), and evidence "[t]hat a third party may have borne animus towards the victim, standing alone, does little to establish that the third party committed the crime,” Wade v. Ma .2d 896 (2d Dep't 1992) (<HOLDING>). At the district court, the Superintendent

A: holding that the double jeopardy clause was not violated by two convictions arising from the same criminal episode because the crimes of attempted burglary and possession of burglary tools each had an element the other did not and were thus separate crimes
B: holding intoxication is only a defense to specific intent crimes and not general intent crimes
C: holding in case involving the assault robbery and attempted murder of a taxi driver that no clear link existed between the crimes and an individual accused of similar crimes in the same area and rumored to be the true culprit
D: holding that robbery under california law categorically qualified as a crime involving moral turpitude and noting precedent in this and other circuits that theft crimes are crimes involving moral turpitude
C.