Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
362, 389 (Del.2011) (citing Manley v. State, 709 A.2d, 643, 655 (Del.1998)). 75 . App. to Opening Br. A-1549-50, A-1552. 76 . Id. at A-1557-58 (first omission in original). 77 . Ploof III, 2012 WL 1413483, at *11 (Del.Super. Jan. 30, 2012). 78 . Ploof also stated that Trial Counsel was ineffective for failing to object to the striking of prospective juror Susan Smith for cause, however, the record reflects that the State immediately used a peremptory challenge on Smith after the trial judge denied the challenge for cause. App. to Opening Br. A-1593-94. Accordingly, Ploof's claim regarding Smith fails on prejudice grounds, because the trial judge denied the challenge for cause. 79 . Id. at A-1545. 80 . Id. at A-1566-67. 81 . See Keith v. Mitchell, 455 F.3d 662, 677-78 (6th Cir.2006) ; Williams v. Collins, 16 F.3d 626, 633 (5th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a defendant could not establish stricklands prejudice prong because any erroneous exclusion of an impartial juror was harmless because we have every reason to believe the replacement was also an impartial juror the defendant does not dispute that he was convicted and sentenced by an impartial jury and he presents no reason to think that a jury composed of a slightly different set of impartial jurors would have reached a different verdict
B. holding that the defendants right to an impartial jury was not impaired when there was no common thread or similarity among the group of excluded jurors
C. holding that a defendants claim that a jury was not impartial must focus on the jurors who ultimately sat
D. holding that we could not review an aliens colorable due process claim that an ij was not impartial because the alien raised the claim for the first time on appeal
E. holding that a criminal defendants right to an impartial jury is guaranteed by article 1 section 9 of the pennsylvania constitution
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.