Instruct: Given a premise, retrieve hypotheses that are entailed by the premise.
Query: Your Honor, as you know, we've got the question of whether or not these are admissible for effect. Our position on that we've articulated. I don't know if you want us to argue at greater length or brief, but it's hearsay to the extent it's offered for the truth of the matter asserted as effect.
The speaker does not know how long Your Honor wants him to argue.
They have the ability to testify.
I think the testimony should definitely be allowed
The judge meant to imply fact witnesses.
They have the option to testify.
Reporters' testimony is unnecessary in order to invoke the residual hearsay exception under Rule 807.
This statement was made by a lawyer to the judge and he was giving his opinion about the court having some discretion about the questioning.
They may be able to testify if they choose to.
Reporters' testimony is unnecessary in order to invoke the residual hearsay exception under Rule 1407.
Their testimony was significant to the judge.
Defendants have expert witnesses
They have the choice to testify.
They dont them to testify
They can testify if they want to.
Residual hearsay exception under Rule 807 is not always invoked for reporters testimony but can always be for any other fact witness.
They can decide to testify.
The subjects at hand are not admissible 
Your witness is instructed not to answer and she must let the court rule.
They have the chance to testify.
The plaintiffs will testify today.
I certainly think you are capable of many different things, including instructing your witness not to answer.
An affidavit will be just as effective at trial.
The speaker is not talking to a judge.
The speaker is not addressing a judge in his remark.
The speaker is not talking to someone who is a judge.