Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in two stages. “First, we determine whether the statements were improper.” Boyd, 640 F.3d at 669. Second, we determine whether the prosecutor’s remarks were “flagrant.” Id. Poandl contends that the prosecutor made two types of improper arguments. First, Poandl argues that the government made inflammatory appeals to sympathy for David Harper and played on jurors’ fears that Poandl would hurt other children. Appellant Br. at 52. Second, Poandl argues that the government minimized the burden of proof. Id. at 58-62. I agree with my colleagues that the second category of comments was not improper or flagrant. I. IMPROPRIETY A. Inflaming the Passions and Prejudices of Jurors It is well established that prosecutors “must obey the cardinal rule that a prosecutor cannot m th Cir.1977) . And it is improper for the government to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that it is not vouching for prosecutor to say that jury should come to believe on the evidence that the events occurred the way the governments witnesses said they did
B. holding that it was improper for the trial court to instruct the jury that it could not consider the states failure to videotape the defendant
C. holding that comments that if jurors acquit then they are accomplices to future murders were improper
D. holding that comments that implied that the drug trade would continue if the jury did not convict the defendant were improper
E. holding that it was improper for the prosecutor to tell the jury that if they acquit the defendant of bank robbery that is like opening all the banks and saying come on and get the money boys because well never be able to convict them
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.