With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". contends that, “[b]ecause the issue is one of jury selection—that the defendant was required to try his case to a jury which included an individual who properly should have been the subject of his constitutionally protected exercise of a peremptory challenge—the error is structural in nature . . . .” He relies on Tankleff v. Senkowski, 135 F.3d 235, 248 (2d Cir. 1998), wherein the Second Circuit Court of Appeals concluded: “Because the effects of racial discrimination during voir dire may persist through the whole course of the trial proceedings, Powers [v. Ohio, 499 U.S. 400, 412, 111 S. Ct. 1364, 113 L. Ed. 2d 411 (1991)], we hold that a Batson/Powers claim is a structural error that is not subj ect to harmless error review. See Ford v. Norris, 67 F.3d 162, 171 (8th Cir. 1995) (<HOLDING>); Rosa v. Peters, 36 F.3d 625, 634 n.17 (7th

A: holding that the omission of an element is not a structural error subject to automatic reversal but rather  where objected to  is subject to harmless error analysis
B: holding that a constitutional violation involving the selection of jurors in a racially discriminatory manner is a structural defect    which cannot be subjected to a harmless error analysis
C: holding that the omission of an element is subject to harmless error analysis
D: recognizing that where the error involved defies analysis by harmless error standards or the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harmless error analysis then the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
B.