Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
argument that an explanation based on a juror’s perceived “snippiness” toward or perceived inappropriate looks at the prosecutor, or on a juror’s perceived better rapport with opposing counsel, is not legally cognizable as a race-neutral explanation in the context of a Batson challenge. As we observed in Smith, “concern about a juror’s rapport with opposing counsel can be a legitimate, race-neutral basis for a peremptory strike.” 966 A.2d at 384 n. 27 (citing Majid v. Portuondo, 428 F.3d 112, 117, 131 (2d Cir.2005)); see also United States v. Rodriguez, 178 Fed.Appx. 152, 156 (3d Cir.2006) (reasoning that prosecutor’s explanations about his perception of jurors’ lack of eye contact were sufficient at Batson step two); United States v. Cordova, 186 Fed.Appx. 742, 744 (9th Cir.2006) . It bears reiterating that “explanations based
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that trial court abused its discretion in failing to make a proper inquiry of jurors andor failing to strike jurors for cause after jurors explicitly expressed bias
B. holding trial court did not err by permitting evidence that defendant molested another child three years before the victim
C. holding that the trial court did not err by granting defendants motion for summary judgment
D. holding that trial court did not plainly err by permitting prosecutors strike for proffered reason of jurors negative body language and eye contact
E. holding that trial court did not err
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.