With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". is whether there was a viable defense,” and instructing courts to “consider the totality of the circumstances” “in determining whether a reasonable probability exists that the defendant would have insisted on going to trial”). For the foregoing reasons, we hold that Middleton has established prejudice, in satisfaction of Strickland, by showing lins, 985 So.2d 985, 992 (Fla.2008), that the guarantee against double jeopardy protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after an acquittal. Here, due to the structural defect in the trial, no verdict was rendered; therefore, no acquittal on the capital charge occurred. An 11-person jury cannot reach a legitimate verdict in a capital case, absent a waiver by the defendant. See Williams v. State, 792 So.2d 1207, 1210 (Fla.2001) (<HOLDING>). Although Williams was not decided at the time

A: holding a new trial required when juror is replaced by an alternate during jury deliberations
B: holding that the district courts dismissal of a juror after five weeks of deliberations violated the defendants right to a unanimous jury because the record evidence suggested the juror found the evidence insufficient for a conviction
C: holding that the late substitution of an alternate juror was not prejudicial to defendant because the district court had carefully instructed the alternate not to discuss the case before dismissing her and upon recall the alternate twice affirmed that she had complied with the courts instruction
D: holding that a lottery system for selecting alternate jurors immediately prior to deliberations was harmless error
A.