Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
see also Note, 58 BayloR L.Rev. at 259. That is, the existence of the basic fact of a contractual jury trial waiver gives rise to a presumed fact that the waiver was not knowingly and voluntarily made until the presumed fact is rebutted. Accord Hunter, 988 S.W.2d at 473. Because we begin with this presumption, the burden is on the party seeking to enforce the prelitigation contractual jury waiver to rebut this presumption with evidence that the waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made with full awareness of the legal consequences. In re Prudential, 148 S.W.3d at 132-33 (enforcing contractual jury waiver when “undisputed” facts established waiver was knowing and voluntary as a matter of law); accord In re Gen. Elec. Capital Corp., 203 S.W.3d 314, 316 (Tex.2006) (orig.proceeding) . But see L & R Realty, 715 A.2d at 754-55
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that courts will enforce waiver of appeal rights when waiver is knowing and voluntary
B. recognizing that contractual jury waiver provision that was conspicuous  because it was in bolded font and in all capital letters  met burden of party seeking to enforce provision to make prima facie showing that waiver was knowing and voluntary
C. recognizing initial burden of presenting prima facie evidence that jury waiver was knowingly and voluntarily made is on party seeking to enforce provision
D. holding that a defendant must demonstrate a knowing waiver
E. holding contractual jury waiver provision that was in all capital letters and was bolded was conspicuous
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.