Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
at 584. ¶ 9 In Lam v. Peyton, 268 F.Supp. 253, 254 (W.D.Va.1967), the court relied on that language in Kercheval in rejecting the defendant’s claim that the state had been required to provide independent evidence of the corpus delicti through a witness in a guilty plea proceeding. The court concluded that “corpus delicti must be established in order to admit an extra-judicial confession” and refused to apply that rule to “a formal plea of guilty.” Id.; see also Waley v. United States, 233 F.2d 804, 806 (9th Cir.1956) (corpus delicti rule inapplicable to plea of guilty made at trial); State v. Lee, 335 N.C. 244, 439 S.E.2d 547, 568 (1994) (finding corpus delicti rule inapplicable at jury trial for sentencing of defendant who had pled guilty to first-degree murder); Mullen, supra, at 408 ; but see Commonwealth v. Fears, 575 Pa. 281,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing first two exceptions
B. recognizing exceptions to immunity
C. recognizing the permissible use of hearsay without corroboration
D. recognizing two exceptions to eleventh amendment bar
E. recognizing infrajudicial statements among exceptions to corpus delicti rule defendant may plead guilty without independent proof of a crime and a defendants incourt confession requires no corroboration
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.