Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
issue in Faretta, however, was whether the Constitution forbids a State from forcing a lawyer upon a criminal defendant, which is an entirely different issue. 4 This problem does not exist under federal law because the long-standing right of self-representation in federal courts is codified at 28 U.S.C. § 1654 (1982), which provides that “[i]n all courts of the United States the parties may plead and conduct their own cases personally or by counsel . . . 5 We recognize, of course, that commensurate with Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975), a state is forbidden under the Fourteenth Amendment from forcing a lawyer upon a criminal defendant. Meads, Judge, dissenting. I cannot agree with the to reverse this case. In the first place, neither Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806 (1975) , nor Lassiter v. Dept. of Soc. Servs. of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that when a defendant voluntarily intelligently and unequivocally elects to proceed without counsel under the sixth amendment a court cannot force the defendant to accept counsel against his or her will
B. holding that a defendant in a state criminal trial has an independent constitutional right of selfrepresentation and that he may proceed to represent himself without counsel when he voluntarily and intelligently elects to do so
C. holding that defendant waived his right to selfrepresentation where he told the trial judge before trial that he did not want to represent himself and the public defender acted as counsel for the remainder of trial without objection
D. holding that one must voluntarily and intelligently waive the right to counsel
E. holding petitioner cannot claim he was denied right to assistance of counsel when he knowingly and voluntarily decided to represent himself
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.