Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
an implied bias claim “should hesitate before formulating categories of relationships [that] bar jurors from serving in certain types of trials.” Tinsley v. Borg, 895 F.2d 520, 527 (9th Cir. 1990). And our precedent disfavors extending implied bias to cover relationships between jurors and Government witnesses. In United States v. Ferri, we held that the occupational acquaintance between the husband of a juror and a Government witness did not justify a presumption of bias. 778 F.2d at 993. Likewise, in Government of Virgin Islands v. Gereau, we concluded that a juror who was the ex-wife of a non-critical police officer witness, and who interacted with him occasionally, was not presumptively excludable. 502 F.2d at 934. See also Sanders v. Norris, 529 F.3d 787, 793-94 (8th Cir. 2008) ; United States v. Bradshaw, 787 F.2d 1385,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the county coroner who retrieved and autopsied the victims in the defendants murder trial did not fall within a category of jurors presumed biased as a matter of law
B. recognizing county officers as  those whose general authority and jurisdiction are confined within the limits of the county in which they are appointed who are appointed in and for a particular county and whose duties apply only to that county and through whom the county performs its usual political functions 
C. recognizing that jurors are presumed to follow instructions
D. holding that both saline county and grant county had jurisdiction to try the appellant for murder where the actual killing occurred in one county but the acts requisite to the consummation of the murder and the subsequent disposal of the body occurred in the other county
E. holding that a court may conduct a fair use analysis as a matter of law where the facts are presumed or admitted
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.