With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The High Court has explicitly affirmed that voir dire is a critical stage of the criminal proceeding, during which the defendant has a constitutional right to be present. Gomez v. United States, 490 U.S. 858, 873, 109 S.Ct. 2237, 104 L.Ed.2d 923 (1989) (citing Lewis, supra at 374,13 S.Ct. 136). The determination that voir dire is a critical stage of trial flows directly from the recognition that a defendant’s “life or liberty may depend upon the aid which, by his personal presence, he may give to counsel and to the court and triers in the selection of jurors.” Lewis, supra at 373, 13 S.Ct. 136. However, certain decisions regarding the conduct of voir dire are properly made by counsel alone. See, e.g., Gonzalez v. United States, 553 U.S. 242, 128 S.Ct. 1765, 170 L.Ed.2d 616 (2009[2008]) (<HOLDING>). The High Court has also stated: The mere

A: holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire
B: holding that defense counsel may decide whether to consent to voir dire proceedings before a federal magistrate
C: holding that district courts delegation of voir dire to magistrate judge is inconsistent with 28 usc  636b3 where defendant does not consent
D: holding that the jurors failure to remember particular facts inquired about on voir dire and the jurors misunderstanding of voir dire questions do not constitute probable prejudice
B.