Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
resolve the question of whether a confession, the voluntariness of which has been fully and finally litigated in prior proceedings, precludes a convicted person from subsequently presenting a prima faeie case that exculpatory results obtained from DNA testing of items of evidence would establish his or her actual innocence, requires us to interpret the relevant language of Section 9543.1. Because statutory interpretation is a matter of law, our standard' of review is de novo, and our scope of review is plenary. Commonwealth v. McClintic, 589 Pa. 465, 472, 909 A.2d 1241, 1245 (2006). Consequently, we are not bound by the lower court’s conclusions regarding the proper meaning of the applicable provisions of this statute. See Commonwealth v. Kyle, 582 Pa. 624, 632, 874 A.2d 12, 17 (2005) . Our review is further governed by the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that on review of a motion to suppress the appellate court is to give deference to a trial courts factual findings but legal conclusions are reviewed de novo
B. holding that where the issue before the court is legal as opposed to factual an appellate court need not give deference to a trial courts decision
C. holding that the grant of an injunction is reviewed for abuse of discretion but without deference to the legal conclusions of the trial court
D. holding that a trial courts statutory interpretation is given no deference on review
E. holding that our court owes no duty of deference to the legal conclusions of lower courts regarding an issue of statutory construction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.