With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The disparity alleged by Williams is significant, as this Court has found that “an absolute disparity between the percentage of a group in the population and its percentage in the jury pool of less than 5% is almost always constitutional; an absolute disparity between 5 and 10% is usually constitutional; and an absolute disparity of over 10% is probably unconstitutional.” Id. at 692. See also West v. State, 252 Ga. 156, 157 (1) (313 SE2d 67) (1984) (17% absolute disparity for females in jury pool from females in county population violates OCGA § 15-12-40). If the 17.49 percent disparity is found to be reliable, this statistic could be sufficient for a prima facie case under both the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. See Jones v. Georgia, 389 U. S. 24 (88 SC 4, 19 LE2d 25) (1967) (<HOLDING>); Sanders v. State, 237 Ga. 858 (230 SE2d 291)

A: holding that a petitioner did not make a prima facie showing of illegal discrimination because the petitioner needed to point to more facts than the number of africanamericans struck in order to establish a pattern of strikes supporting an inference of discrimination
B: holding that the mathematical disparity between 197 of africanamericans in the population and 47 of africanamericans on grand jury lists was adequate for a prima facie case under an equal protection analysis
C: holding that the plaintiff made out a prima facie case of disparate impact despite a lack of statistical significance based on past discrimination which reduced the number of africanamericans eligible to sit for the promotional exam
D: holding that equal protection requires that state legislative districts be roughly equal in population
B.