With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 219, 222 (4th Cir.1989). In Poynter, a medical malpractice case, the trial court had decided not to excuse for cause a juror who was a patient of one of the defendant doctors and a juror who was a defendant in another medical malpractice suit. The Poynter court noted that: A juror is presumed impartial and the existence of a preconception is insufficient to rebut this presumption if the juror can “lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based on the evidence presented in court.” Id. at 221 (quoting Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U.S. 717, 723, 81 S.Ct. 1639, 1643, 6 L.Ed.2d 751 (1961)). The court then held that the district court had not abused its discretion in deciding not to excuse the two jurors. Id. at 222 (citing United States v. Jones, 608 F.2d 1004, 1007-08 (4th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). Here, Marks assured the court that he could

A: holding the defendant properly convicted of multiple counts of armed robbery against bank employees even though the defendant robbed only the bank
B: holding judge in bank robbery prosecution did not abuse discretion in refusing to excuse juror whose wife was bank employee or juror whose daughter had been victim of bank robbery
C: holding that the presence requirement of the carjacking statute was satisfied when keys were taken from a bank employee whose car was parked in a parking lot outside the bank
D: holding that a bank customer did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in records maintained by the bank
B.