Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
from strategic decisions of the defendant’s trial counsel under the guise of an “arbitrary fact” for the purposes of 42 Pa.C.S. § 9711(h)(3)’s statutory review). Commonwealth v. Diamond, — Pa.-, 83 A.3d 119, 136 (2013) (footnote omitted). Moreover, the prosecutor here was simply relaying facts. The expression that the “cloak of innocence has been removed” is simply another way of saying that Appellant has been convicted of first-degree murder. Thus, Appellant’s suggestions of unfair prejudice are unfounded. Indeed, Appellant fully disregards the salient fact that the trial judge provided the jury with a full and correct instruction, and the presumption remains that the jury faithfully followed the judge’s instructions. See Commonwealth v. DeJesus, 580 Pa. 303, 860 A.2d 102, 111 (2004) . In fact, the record reveals nothing more than
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the law presumes that the jury will follow the courts instructions
B. holding that a jury is presumed to follow the trial courts instructions
C. recognizing that jurors are presumed to follow instructions
D. holding that it is presumed that the jury obeyed the trial courts instructions
E. holding that jurors were presumed to follow instructions similar to those in the instant case
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.