With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". U.S. 897, 922 n. 23, 104 S.Ct. 3405, 82 L.Ed.2d 677 (1984) (describing a “good-faith inquiry ... confined to the objectively ascertainable question [of] whether a reasonably well trained officer would have known that the search was illegal”) (emphasis added), with Deluxe Blacic’s Law DictionaRY 693 (6th ed.1990) (defining “good faith” in a subjective fashion as, inter alia, “an honest belief, the absence of malice”). III. Appellants’ third argument is that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s conspiracy verdict because it failed to establish the existence of an agreement between Hu and Lin. We believe, however, that a rational juror could have found that such an agreement existed. See generally Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 319, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Pi-tre, 960 F.2d 1112, 1121

A: holding that when conducting a legal sufficiency review the reviewing court should view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict to determine whether any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt
B: holding that on a review of the sufficiency of the evidence the court determines whether any rational trier of fact could have found all the elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt
C: holding that a verdict must be sustained against a sufficiency of the evidence challenge if any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the charged crime beyond a reasonable doubt
D: holding that when an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the conviction the relevant question is whether after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt
C.