Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
1136, 1140-41 (App.1996); Deuel v. Ariz. State Sch. for the Deaf and Blind, 165 Ariz. 524, 526-27, 799 P.2d 865, 867-68 (App. 1990) (setting forth due process rights of covered public employees); accord 5 U.S.C. § 2301 (1996) (setting forth federal merit system principles); see generally Daryl Man-hart, Commment, Property and Liberty Limitations on the Dismissal of Arizona Public Employees, 1977 Ariz. St. L.J. 835, 853-54 [hereinafter “Manhart”] (discussing law enforcement merit systems). ¶ 15 The right to treatment based on merit and a hearing by a neutral board before discipline becomes final are therefore central merit system principles of public employment for purposes of A.R.S. § 38-1003. See Evans v. State ex rel. Ariz. Corp. Comm’n, 131 Ariz. 569, 572, 643 P.2d 14, 17 (App.1982) ; Bishop v. Law Enforcement Merit Sys. Council,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that the focus must be on whether the facts alleged would place a reasonably prudent person in fear of not receiving a fair and impartial trial
B. holding no violation of substantial rights occurred during voir dire where record did not show that defendant was denied fair and impartial trial
C. recognizing requirement that state personnel board be a fair and impartial tribunal
D. recognizing absolute immunity for board members and the director of the mississippi state board of nursing
E. 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
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.