With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". with his responsibility to weigh sneh expert testimony impartially. The Court finds that, taken together, juror 184’s views on mitigation evidence and expert testimony would substantially interfere with his ability to fairly and impartially consider the evidence in this capital case. Fell intends to introduce mitigating evidence relating to his background and childhood. Moreover, much of this evidence is likely to be introduced through the expert testimony of psychiatrists. Thus, Fell would face a double hurdle in any attempt to convince juror 184 that this evidence was relevant. This suggests that the juror’s personal views would be an obstacle to fair and impartial consideration of Fell’s case. Thus, juror 184 will be excused for cause. See Wainwright, 469 U.S. at 434, 105 S.Ct. 844 (<HOLDING>). C. The Form of Questions Regarding Mitigating

A: holding that a juror should be excused if his or her views would create an obstacle or significantly interfere with impartial consideration of the law and facts
B: holding only that although a party cannot interfere with its own contract a supervisor who is not an officer of a plaintiffs employer is not a party to the plaintiffs employment contract and therefore can interfere with it
C: holding that a lower court should not take any action once appeal is filed which would interfere with the appeal process or with the appellate courts jurisdiction
D: holding that the enhancement requires that the defendant either threaten the codefendant witness or juror in his or her presence or issue the threat in circumstances in which there is some likelihood that the codefendant witness or juror will learn of the threat
A.