Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
593-94, the mandatory nature of our current rule was clarified in January 2005 when preexisting versions in the Kentucky civil and criminal rules, versions leaving the sequestration of witnesses largely to the trial court’s discretion, were rescinded, and KRE 615 was established as the controlling rule in our courts. Because, under the current rule, a court may decline a party’s request to sequester a particular witness only if one of the rule’s three express exemptions applies, the rule creates a strong presumption in favor of sequestration. Cf. United States v. Jackson, 60 F.3d 128, 135 (2nd Cir. 1995) (discussing the nearly identical federal rule). Moreover, the party opposing the presumption bears the burden of showing that one of the exemptions applies. Hatfield, 250 S.W.3d at 595 ; Opus 3 Ltd., 91 F.3d at 628 (noting that “the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a trial court errs by exempting a witness from sequestration absent the requisite showing
B. holding that evidence of a threat to a witness by the defendant is relevant as showing an attempt to prevent a witness from testifying and avoid punishment for the crime
C. recognizing that  an ordinary witness may decline to answer only after making the requisite showing of the danger of selfincrimination 
D. holding that the jury could have reasonably inferred the requisite intent to induce the witness to lie or testify falsely from the defendants statements to the witness
E. holding that a trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying a motion to exclude testimony of a witness for an alleged sequestration violation where no impermissible harmonization of testimony could be inferred from the witnesss reading of the newspaper in the absence of any evidence that this testimony was based on what he read
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.