Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
fair trial.”), if Ms. Battles had obtained the information upon which she presently grounds her Brady claim before the trial commenced (or, indeed, sometime before the trial ended), she would have been obliged to voice her concerns about that potentially suppressed information then. Compare United States v. Warhop, 732 F.2d 775, 777 (10th Cir.1984) (“While we strongly disapprove of delayed disclosure of Brady materials, that alone is not always grounds for reversal. ‘As long as ultimate disclosure is made before it is too late for the defendant] to make use of any benefits of the evidence, Due Process is satisfied.’ ” (alteration in original) (quoting United States v. Ziperstein, 601 F.2d 281, 291 (7th Cir.1979))), with United States v. Scarborough, 128 F.3d 1373, 1376 (10th Cir.1997) . In such a circumstance, Ms. Battles’s failure
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding prosecutor has affirmative duty to disclose material exculpatory evidence
B. holding that a lie by defendant to government regarding his past criminal history was exculpatory material under brady
C. holding that record must show that evidence is exculpatory for defendant to establish brady violation
D. holding that the prosecution must disclose to the defense all exculpatory evidence known to the state or in its possession
E. holding that revelation of exculpatory material just prior to the end of trial which led the defense to move  to dismiss the case  for violating brady did not warrant reversal when following the recess defense counsel extensively crossexamined the witness possessing the purportedly exculpatory information regarding the tardilydisclosed evidence  and used the exculpatory material to strong effect in his closing argument
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.