With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The Second Circuit has observed that “[a]n explanation for a particular challenge need not necessarily be pigeon-holed as wholly acceptable or wholly unacceptable.” Alvarado II, 923 F.2d at 256. Where the acceptability of the explanation is doubtful, the Batson inquiry is not at an end. United States v. Alvarado, 951 F.2d 22, 26 (2d Cir. 1991) (“Alvarado III ”). In deciding the ultimate issue of discriminatory intent, the judicial officer is entitled to assess each explanation in light of all the other evidence relevant to prosecutorial intent. The officer may think a dubious explanation undermines the bona fides of other explanations or may think that the sound explanations dispel the doubt raised by a questionable one. Id. See also, Howard v. Senkowski 986 F.2d 24, 30 (2d Cir.1993) (<HOLDING>); Alvarado II, 923 F.2d at 256. As discussed

A: holding trial errors are subject to a harmless error analysis
B: holding that batson challenges are subject to dualmotivation analysis
C: holding evidentiary rulings are subject to harmless error analysis
D: holding that confrontation clause issues are subject to harmless error analysis
B.