Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Tex. 278, 317 S.W.2d 916, 921-22 (1958), in which the supreme court held that the plaintiffs overt act in seeking out a juror and asking her to “do all you can to help me” was sufficient to demonstrate probable harm. The McCaslin court noted that “[a] juror’s disavowal of influence derived from misconduct is not a proper inquiry.” Id. at 920. Instead, the court explained, the presence or absence of injury “must be drawn from overt acts such as conversations and physical actions, i.e., what was said and done.” Id. The Losiers argue that the jurors undoubtedly knew the paralegal, Monica Lee, worked for the defendants’ attorneys because she was introduced in voir dire, and therefore the juror, Robert Mulvey, was aware of her relationship to the defendants. Cf. Mercado, 106 S.W.3d at 397 . The Losiers further contend that because the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that there could be no conscious or subconscious influence from shadow jurors contact with juror when juror was unaware of shadow jurors affiliation with a party
B. 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
C. holding that when a defendant alleges that an unauthorized contact with a juror has tainted a trial a hearing must be held
D. holding statute stating that judge could excuse jurors was violated when jury commissioners excused jurors
E. holding that rule 606b precludes a party seeking a new trial from using one jurors affidavit of what another juror said in deliberations to demonstrate the other jurors dishonesty during voir dire
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.