Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
state rebuts the defendant’s claim by showing no government inducement. 7 . See e.g., Hampton v. United States, 425 U.S. 484, 96 S.Ct. 1646,48 L.Ed.2d 113 (1976); United States v. Russell, 411 U.S. 423, 93 S.Ct. 1637, 36 L.Ed.2d 366 (1973); State v. Keating, 551 S.W.2d 589, 592-93 (Mo. banc 1977), cert. denied, 434 U.S. 1071, 98 S.Ct. 1255, 55 L.Ed.2d 775 (1978). 8 . See United States v. Anderton, 629 F.2d 1044, 1047-48 n. 3 (5th Cir.1980) (uncontradicted testimony of both defendant and unwitting government agent that the agent pressured de fendant into making bribery payments was insufficient to establish entrapment as a matter of law since “the jury could have rejected their testimony”). 9 . But cf. Sherman v. United States, 356 U.S. 369, 373, 78 S.Ct. 819, 821, 2 L.Ed.2d 848 (1958) . DONNELLY, Judge, dissenting. In State v.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that unless an affirmative defense is established as matter of law defendant bears burden of obtaining jury findings necessary to support defense
B. holding that if the undisputed testimony of the prosecutions witnesses establishes or corroborates an entrapment defense entrapment is established as a matter of law
C. holding as a general rule of contract law if no other meaning is reasonable the court shall rule as a matter of law that the meaning is established
D. holding that we must sustain legal sufficiency or noevidence challenge if record shows that evidence conclusively establishes opposite of vital fact and matter is established as matter of law if reasonable people could not differ as to conclusion to be drawn from evidence
E. recognizing that in any criminal trial the credibility of the prosecutions witnesses is central
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.