Question ID:PT72 S3 Q19 Passage:After a judge has made the first ruling on a particular point of law, judges must follow that precedent if the original ruling is not contrary to the basic moral values of society. In the absence of precedent, when judges' own legal views do not contradict any widespread public opinion‚ and only then‚ they may abide by their own legal views in deciding a case.  Stem:Of the rulings described below, which one conforms most closely to the principles stated above? Correct Answer Choice:DChoice A:Judge Swoboda is confronted with a legal issue never before decided. Realizing that his own view on the issue contradicts what most people believe, he nonetheless issues a ruling that accords with his own legal views. Choice B:Judge Valenzuela decides, in the absence of any precedent, whether children as young as twelve can be legally tried as adults. There is overwhelming public support for trying children twelve and older as adults, a practice that violates Judge Valenzuela's personal moral views. So Judge Valenzuela rules, in keeping with his own legal beliefs, against trying twelve-year-olds as adults. Choice C:Judge Levinsky sets a legal precedent when she rules that the "starfish exception" applies to children. In deciding a later case concerning the starfish exception, Judge Wilson adheres to his own legal views rather than Judge Levinsky's ruling, even though he does not believe that Judge Levinsky's ruling opposes the basic moral values of society. Choice D:Judge Watanabe must decide a case that depends on an issue for which no legal precedent exists. There is no widespread public opinion on the issue, so Judge Watanabe rules against the defendant because that conforms to her own legal view about the issue. Choice E:Judge Balila rules against the defendant because doing so conforms to her own views about the legal issues involved. However, this ruling is contrary to relevant precedents, all of which conform to the basic moral values of society.