With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". decision is not an unreasonable application of Witt. In Witt, the Supreme Court upheld that trial court’s excusal for cause of a juror after she stated that her personal beliefs against the death penalty would interfere with judging the defendant’s guilt or innocence. See Witt, 469 U.S. at 416, 105 S.Ct. 844. Similarly, in this case, the record reflects that both witnesses stated that they would be unable to sign a death verdict, regardless of the verdict. The district court’s independent review of the state court record confirms the state courts’ assessment that the jurors’ views on the death penalty would substantially impair their performance. For these reasons, the Ohio Supreme Court’s ruling is not contrary to Adams v. Texas, 448 U.S. 38, 100 S.Ct. 2521, 65 L.Ed.2d 581 (1980) (<HOLDING>), and Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510, 88

A: holding that certain veniremen had been improperly excluded because they acknowledged that their views of the death penalty might affect their deliberations but only to the extent that they would view their task with greater gravity
B: holding that if undisclosed evidence might have affected the disposition of the summary judgment motion the plaintiffs chose not to disclose the basis of their claim and they did so at their own risk
C: holding in a similar situation that statements from unidentified ex ecutives were admissible because evidence established that though their precise identity was unknown they were all westinghouse executives who had authority to make personnel decisions and thus were actfing within the scope of their employment in stating their views on the state of their workforce
D: holding that shareholders had failed to maintain their status as shareholders by selling their shares after they had filed their complaint and therefore had lost standing to maintain a derivative suit
A.