In State V

In State v. Fry, the female defendant had been accused of intentionally killing her very young daughter by compressing her chest. During the start of the trial, the judge issued an order to sequester witnesses. A medical doctor, who was a prosecution witness, talked with the prosecutor during a recess, but the doctor did not converse with other case witnesses. When the defense asked for a mistrial because it believed that the medical doctor had violated the sequestration of witnesses order, the judge refused. The reviewing court:

A) held that the doctor did not violate the sequestration order because he only talked to the prosecuting attorney about his testimony, which would be normal under any set of circumstances.
B) held that a mistrial should not be granted when witnesses violate an order of sequestration because other remedies will prove to be quite sufficient in all cases.
C) believed that the trial court judge was incorrect in not granting a mistrial because a sequestration order violation is quite serious, so it reversed defendant Fry's murder conviction.
D) reversed the murder verdict because a sequestration order requires that no witness discuss anything with any other person until that witness has fully testified and has been excused by the judge.