Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
evidence linking any of the 54 nonparty victims to Nevada, but neither did the evidence establish that none of the victims were Nevada residents. This gap in the evidence was critical because the jury heard plaintiffs’ counsel assert that Nevada residents purchased Ford truck models affected by the rollaway problem in disproportionate numbers. Thus, jury members may have assumed that at least some of the 54 nonparty victims lived in Nevada. To remedy the due process violation, we may either remand for a new trial on punitive damages or “change ... the level of the punitive damages award.” Williams, 127 S.Ct. at 1065. We conclude that a new trial on punitive damages is the proper remedy. See Werbungs Und Commerz Union Austalt v. Collectors’ Guild, Ltd., 930 F.2d 1021, 1027 (2d Cir.1991) . On remand, the district court must explain to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that remittitur is not designed to compensate for excessive verdicts in cases where jury is improperly instructed
B. holding that in excessive force cases the threshold question for the court is whether the officers conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right
C. recognizing that the district court could merge duplicative convictions after the jury verdicts are recorded
D. recognizing validity of these rules and noting that their principal purpose is to prevent fishing expeditions in search of information with which to impeach jury verdicts
E. holding that the sixth amendments right to trial by jury was not violated by eleventoone and tentotwo guilty verdicts in state noncapital cases
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.