With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Van Gorder claims that appellate counsel was ineffective for failing to argue that he was prejudiced by having a sheriffs deputy seated at the defense table during trial. Under New York law, “[w]hen courtroom security measures are challenged as inherently prejudicial, the question arises whether the security measures presented a risk that the jury’s deliberations were infected.” People v. Terry, 188 A.D.2d 1020, 591 N.Y.S.2d 666 (4th Dep’t 2002) (finding no such risk of infection where “presence of deputies in the courtroom, without more, was not inherently prejudicial,” and record did not disclose, directly or by inference, that the jury’s verdict was affected by the presence of the uniformed deputies) (citing Holbrook v. Flynn, 475 U.S. 560, 572, 106 S.Ct. 1340, 89 L.Ed.2d 525 (1986) (<HOLDING>)); People v. Brown, 136 A.D.2d 1, 13, 525

A: holding that closure was narrowly tailored where courtroom was closed only during testimony of two undercover officers and transcript was not sealed
B: holding that defendant was not in custody during search of his residence
C: holding that presence of uniformed officers during trial is related to states legitimate interest in maintaining custody during proceedings four uniformed state troopers sitting behind petitioner in first spectator row not prejudicial even though there also were eight security guards and two sheriff deputies in the courtroom
D: holding that a federal court sitting in diversity is bound to follow the law of the forum state
C.