Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
for juror interviews after counsel violated the rules prohibiting contact with jurors in gathering facts to support an allegation of misconduct. There is no indication of improper contact by counsel with jurors in this case. Although the defense in this case did not present evidence of any apparent outward manifestation of intoxication, the use of crack cocaine may not be readily apparent. Additionally, crack cocaine is highly addictive. It is troubling that we are affirming this death case without obtaining an answer to the question of whether the forewoman of the jury used crack cocaine during the trial and in deliberations. Certainly, the use of crack cocaine by a juror in a capital case, if true, would require a new trial. Cf. Gamble v. State, 44 Fla. 429, 33 So. 471, 473 (1902) . Thus, given the seriousness of this
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in case of a short term marriage a presumption against awarding permanent alimony arises but such presumption is rebuttable
B. holding that where a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is grounded in the claim that counsel failed to strike a biased juror a defendant must show that the juror was actually biased against him
C. holding that where the issue is one of arbitrability the federal presumption in favor of arbitration shifts to favor a court determination
D. recognizing presumption
E. holding that if intoxicants have been used by a juror a presumption arises in favor of the convicted defendant that it resulted injuriously to him
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.