With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 98 (5th Cir.1995). We have pointed out in our cases, however, that "[excluding even just some of the public is considered to be a closure of the courtroom and may affect a defendant's right to a public trial.” Tharp v. State, 362 Md. 77, 102 n. 14, 763 A.2d 151, 164 n. 14 (2000); Watters v. State, 328 Md. 38, 45, 612 A.2d 1288, 1293 (1992); see also Walker v. State, 121 Md.App. 364, 373, 709 A.2d 177, 181-82 (1998). 2 . The charges against Longus were: Count 1: Robbery with a deadly weapon; Count 2: Robbery; Count 3: Theft of $500 value or more; Count 4: Assault, first degree; Count 5: Assault, second degree. 3 . By opposing the State’s motion to exclude Myers and Norris, Longus preserved his claim for appellate review. See Robinson v. State, 410 Md. 91, 110, 976 A.2d 1072, 1083 (2009) (<HOLDING>). 4 . Longus also argued in his brief to the

A: holding an issue must be raised to and ruled upon by the trial court in order to be preserved for review
B: holding the issue of recusal of the trial judge to be preserved for appellate review must be raised in the trial court
C: holding that in order to preserve an issue for review a party must make a timely and specific objection at trial
D: holding that a claimed violation of the right to a public trial must be preserved for review by a timely objection at trial
D.