With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". F.3d 490, 510 (D.C.Cir.1996) (noting that a co-defendant can “free ride” on the objection of another only if trial judge makes it clear that such a practice will be followed). Appellants’ objections to the process are essentially twofold: first, that the jurors were in effect “volunteers,” and second, that the court’s hardship excusáis were invalid because they failed to fit the criteria of 28 U.S.C. § 1866(c)(1). Although the statute does not in terms bar a jury of volunteers, courts have held that such a jury fails to satisfy the Act’s goals of random selection and of exclusion only on objective grounds. See United States v. Branscome, 682 F.2d 484 (4th Cir.1982); United States v. Kennedy, 548 F.2d 608, 611 (5th Cir.1977). But see Coleman v. Risley, 839 F.2d 434, 449 (9th Cir.1988) (<HOLDING>). We assume that a truly voluntary jury would

A: holding if plaintiff does not serve report as to particular defendant trial court must dismiss that defendant from suit
B: holding that pennsylvania national guard members could be used for civilian law enforcement because they were not in federal service at the time
C: holding that the challenged practices were not consumeroriented under  349 because they were directed only at prospective insurance agents
D: holding that prospective jurors randomly asked if they could serve at a particular time were not volunteers
D.