Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
could be controlled by the government or vetoed without good reason. Consistent with this principle of non-interference, courts have identified violations of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel where the government obtains incriminating statements from a defendant outside the presence of counsel and then introduces those statements at trial. See, e.g., id. at 176, 106 S.Ct. 477; Massiah v. United States, 377 U.S. 201, 206, 84 S.Ct. 1199, 12 L.Ed.2d 246 (1964). Likewise, the government violates the Sixth Amendment when it intrudes on the attorney-client relationship, preventing defense counsel from “participat[ing] fully and fairly in the adversary factfinding process.” Herring v. New York, 422 U.S. 853, 858, 95 S.Ct. 2550, 45 L.Ed.2d 593 (1975); see, e.g., id. at 858-59, 95 S.Ct. 2550 ; Geders v. United States, 425 U.S. 80, 91, 96
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that statute which permitted judge to deny defense closing in bench trial violated right to counsel and emphasizing the importance of argument by counsel in the factfinding process
B. holding statute permitting judge to deny counsel opportunity for closing argument violated criminal defendants constitutional rightto counsel
C. holding that the sixth amendment right to counsel embodies the right to effective assistance of counsel
D. holding that a new york statute allowing judges in a criminal bench trial to deny counsel the opportunity to make a closing argument deprived defendant of his sixth amendment right to the assistance of counsel
E. holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.