With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". allowing Drapeau to establish the basic facts of these relationships, I would have no problem deferring to the district court’s discretion in the matter. But a total exclusion of all evidence of this family bias leads me to conclude that “a reasonable jury might have received a significantly different impression” of Big Eagle’s credibility and her motivation to testify had they known her sister worked in the U.S. Attorney’s Office prosecuting Dra-peau, and that her brother-in-law was one of the officers who had arrested Drapeau. Beckman, 222 F.3d at 524. If I were a juror, I would want to know about this. While I take issue with the majority’s holding that there was no Sixth Amendment violation, I agree the violation was harmless error. See Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. at 684, 106 S.Ct. 1431 (<HOLDING>). Even without Big Eagle’s testimony, there was

A: holding that a confrontation clause violation constituted harmless error
B: holding confrontation clause violations subject to harmless error analysis
C: holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis
D: holding evidentiary rulings are subject to harmless error analysis
B.