With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". entire voir dire transcript. The California Court of Appeal granted Petitioner’s requests in part and required that he be provided the voir dire of the excused African-American juror plus his counsel’s argument under Batson. But the court of appeal denied Petitioner’s requests for the entire voir dire transcript because it concluded that he did not comply with a California local rule that requires a defendant to “establish with some certainty how the requested materials may be useful on appeal.” Cal. Ct. App., First App. Dist. Local Rule 6(d) (2003). The court also relied on controlling California precedent, which does not require a court to provide a defendant with an entire voir dire transcript free of charge. See People v. Landry, 49 Cal. App.4th 785, 56 Cal.Rptr.2d 824, 828 (1996) (<HOLDING>). On direct appeal to the California Court of

A: holding that when the purpose of the request is to compare the testimony of jurors but no such comparison was made at the trial level a court need not provide a free voir dire transcript
B: holding that trial court erred in denying defendants request to allow standby counsel to conduct voir dire where there was no indication that the trial court considered the koehler factors or that granting the request would have disrupted or delayed the trial
C: holding that the extent to which parties may examine prospective jurors on voir dire lies within the trial judges discretion
D: holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire
A.