Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Woolston, 453 N.E.2d at 968. It is for the trial court to determine whether the juror is biased for or against the defendant. Id. Only if the defendant was placed in substantial peril will we find an abuse of discretion. Id. A. Juror Jester Alvies contends that Jester should have been removed and replaced with an alternate juror because her father-in-law is a second cousin of one of the victims. In response, the State directs us to subsection (a)(4) of the statute concerning relatives within the fifth degree of the defendant or victim. We agree with the State that Alvies cannot establish that Jester is related to the victim within the fifth degree and, thus, is not entitled to have her removed for cause under that section. See Whicker v. State, 511 N.E.2d 1062, 1064-65 (Ind.1987) . As Alvies points out, however, the basis of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding juror who was aunt of defendants mothers nephews wife was not related within fifth degree and thus should not have been removed for cause under indcode  353715a4
B. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in excusing a juror for cause
C. holding judge in bank robbery prosecution did not abuse discretion in refusing to excuse juror whose wife was bank employee or juror whose daughter had been victim of bank robbery
D. holding that trial courts denial of motion for new trial based on juror misconduct was justified where there was no evidence presented at hearing on motion that juror had knowingly concealed relevant litigation experience during voir dire and identity of juror as county court litigant was not demonstrated
E. holding that a defendants exercise of peremptory challenges  is not denied or impaired when the defendant chooses to use a peremptory challenge to remove a juror who should have been excused for cause
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.