Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
hearsay rule if they have “equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness,” and certain other requirements are met. Fed.R.Evid. 807. Although no such express residual exception exists under New York law, New York courts have recently recognized a constitutionally-based exception to the hearsay prohibition for certain evidence offered by defendants in criminal cases. See People v. Robinson, 89 N.Y.2d 648, 657 N.Y.S.2d 575, 579, 679 N.E.2d 1055 (1997) (allowing defendant, on constitutional principles, to introduce grand jury testimony of unavail able witness, even though such testimony did not fall within recognized hearsay exception); People v. James, 242 A.D.2d 389, 661 N.Y.S.2d 273 (2d Dep’t 1997) (same); People v. Esteves, 152 A.D.2d 406, 549 N.Y.S.2d 30, 35 (2d Dep’t 1989) ; see also People v. Seeley, 186 Misc.2d 715,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that an objection on hearsay grounds did not preserve for appeal an exception to the hearsay rule that was not specifically raised
B. holding florida drivers handbook hearsay and not within any recognized exception to hearsay rule
C. recognizing that the united states constitution may require courts to admit exculpatory hearsay statements that do not fall within any recognized hearsay exception
D. holding that the rejection of the exculpatory hearsay testimony of a government witness was in error particularly in view that accusatory hearsay was admitted
E. holding that statements within a firmly rooted hearsay exception do not violate the confrontation clause
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.