With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". As mentioned above, he would first fill the jury box, then excuse jurors for cause, and replace them with jurors next in line. Hr’g Tr. vol. 1 at 26-27. This method results in spectator benches being emptied sequentially from front to back. Thus had spectators been allowed back into the courtroom, they could have been seated in empty benches in front of the remaining venirepersons, rather than “among” the venire. Spectators might, therefore, have filled those benches, bench by bench, sitting no closer to the venire than the bench occupied by Mrs. Bucci, Mrs. Keefe, and Mrs. Jordan. Still, admitting spectators bench by bench as benches became vacant would greatly have increased the risk of inappropriate interaction between the venire and the spectators. Moreover A.2d 968 (1994) (<HOLDING>); Davidson v. State, 591 So.2d 901, 902-903

A: holding that it was unreasonable for officers to break down doors that they already knew were open
B: holding that it would not be unreasonable to find condition in hotel lunchroom unsafe because invitee would be distracted
C: holding that no closure occurred where judge locked doors to ensure jury would not be distracted
D: holding that the defendant is not entitled to be sentenced by the judge who took his plea when the judge made no promise to sentence him
C.