With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". courts commit “constitutional error without any showing of prejudice” when they prevent defense counsel “from assisting the accused during a critical stage of the proceeding.” See United States v. Cronic, 466 U.S. 648, 659 n. 25, 104 S.Ct. 2039, 80 L.Ed.2d 657 (1984); see also Bell v. Cone, 535 U.S. 685, 696-98, 122 S.Ct. 1843, 152 L.Ed.2d 914 (2002). Bourne contends that communication between the jury and the judge in this case was a critical stage, citing this Circuit’s holding in French v. Jones, 332 F.3d 430 (6th Cir.2003), for support. There, the court held that a trial court’s delivery, without counsel, of supplemental jury instructions was a critical stage and per se harmful. Id. at 434, 436; cf. Shields v. United States, 273 U.S. 583, 587-89, 47 S.Ct. 478, 71 L.Ed. 787 (1927) (<HOLDING>). Bourne contends the ex parte communication

A: recognizing the hazards of ex parte communication with a deliberating jury
B: holding new trial required after judges ex parte communication with jury in response to jury question during deliberations because there was no way of reaching a conclusion about what transpired other than by adopting the judges recollection
C: holding that the judges entry into the jury room constituted reversible error
D: holding that judges ex parte communication telling a jury it needed to reach a verdict was reversible error without any discussion of harmlessness
D.