With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". rules based on either the source of the problem or the intended beneficiary of the ruling would only disserve the vital competing interests of the Government and the defendant”). Where, however, the jury indicates to the court that unanimity was achieved, at some point, on one or more counts, Maryland Rule 4-327(d) points the way for a trial judge to a reasonable alternative to the declaration of a mistrial. Thus, prior to declaring a mistrial without consent on those counts, the trial judge generally should take steps to determine that genuine deadlock exists as to those counts. See, e.g., United States v. Razmilovic, 507 F.3d 130, 137-40 (2d Cir.2007) (conducting a fact-specific inquiry into whether the jury was deadlocked genuinely); In re Ford, 987 F.2d 334, 340 (6th Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). One reasonable alternative is an inquiry into

A: holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict
B: holding that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in declining to instruct the jury regarding a partial verdict where the judges examination of the tentative verdict sheets revealed no indication of jury unanimity
C: holding that trial court was not required to instruct the jury to continue deliberations because despite jurors initial indication that the verdict was not hers she unequivocally affirmed the verdict in response to additional questions
D: holding that the trial judge abused his discretion in not accepting partial verdicts as to counts on which the jury indicated unanimity
B.