With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". during Dunaway’s trial, there was no evidence presented, at the evidentiary hearing affirmatively proving it affected [W.H.’s] verdicts or sentencing recommendations. Dunaway’s collateral counsel did not ask [W.H.] whether he considered his visit as evidence nor did they ask [W.H.] whether it had any affect on his verdicts or sentencing recommendations. Further, .Dunaway’s collateral counsel also did not elicit any testimony from any of the other jurors or the alternate juror called at the June 20.04 hearing showing that [W.H.] had disclosed to them any information about the crime scene. None of the individuals called to testify at the June 2004 proceeding indicated [W.H.] ever disclosed any information from visiting the crime scene. See Reed v. State, 547 So.2d 596, 598 (Ala.1989) (<HOLDING>); see also Reynolds v. City of Birmingham, 723

A: holding that a new trial was warranted where there is reasonable probability that the false testimony introduced by the government influenced the outcome of the trial
B: holding that bjecause the defendant in this case has failed to show that the experiment conducted by a juror resulted in the introduction of facts that might have unlawfully influenced the verdict rendered we find that the jurors action does not warrant a new trial
C: holding bjecause dawson failed to show that the jurors viewing of the crime scene resulted in the introduction of facts that might have unlawfully influenced the jurys verdict a new trial is not warranted
D: holding that the unobjected to statements made by the prosecutor did not indicate an intent on the part of the prosecuting attorney to inflame the minds of the jurors or to arouse passion or prejudice against the defendant nor were they so inflammatory that the jurors might be influenced to determine guilt on factors outside the evidence and thus there was no misconduct
B.