With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in part. As the Majority explains, the “implied bias [doctrine] remains available, in appropriate circumstances, to disqualify jurors whose connection with the litigation makes it highly unlikely that they can remain impartial adjudicators.” (Slip Op. at 13 (citing United States v. Calabrese, 942 F.2d 218 (3d Cir. 1991)).) In dicta in Calabrese, we cited with approval Justice O’Connor’s observation in Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209, 102 S. Ct. 940, 71 L. Ed. 2d 78 (1982), that a “juror [who] is an actual employee of the prosecuting agency” is one example of an “extreme situation^ that would justify a finding of implied bias.” Calabrese, 942 F.2d at 226 (quoting Smith, 455 U.S. at 222 (O’Connor, J., concurring)); accord United States v. Polichemi, 201 F.3d 858, 861-64 (7th Cir. 2000) (<HOLDING>). It is true, as the Majority says, that Juror

A: holding that where a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is grounded in the claim that counsel failed to strike a biased juror a defendant must show that the juror was actually biased against him
B: holding that the attorney generals decision not to provide representation to an employee is reviewable by the appellate division not by the law division where the actions against the employee are pending
C: holding that the failure to strike potentially biased juror was not iac where decision was based on trial strategy
D: holding without citing to justice oconnors concurrence in smith that a juror who was a 15year secretarial employee in the civil division of the prosecuting agency was impliedly biased
D.