With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". each challenged peremptory strike solely for his proffered race-neutral reasons? The trial judge asked whether “black jurors tend to get a lower score by virtue of their being black.” (Resp’t’s Ex. 1 at R-36.) The prosecutor responded that they did not. In overruling Wallace’s Batson objection, the trial judge necessarily found the prosecutor’s explanation of his strikes to be credible. For these reasons, the district court concluded that the prosecutor in effect stated — and that the trial court in effect found — that the prosecutor would have exercised the same peremptory strikes even if he had not considered race. Albeit based on a reading of the trial transcript, the district court’s finding is nonetheless a finding of fact that we review for clear error. Spaziano, 36 F.3d at 1032 (<HOLDING>). Our review of the record reveals that the

A: holding that a district courts determination as to the applicability of a privilege is reviewed for clear error
B: holding that findings of fact from a bench trial are reviewed for clear error
C: holding that findings of fact are reviewed for clear error
D: holding that district courts finding as to what state trial judge knew and did is a question of historical fact reviewed for clear error
D.