Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
three-year sentences on the two armed criminal action counts to be served concurrent with each murder sentence, and a ten-year sentence on the robbery count to be served concurrent with the first murder sentence. Id. On April 11, 2001, after serving over seventeen years in prison, Dixon’s convictions for the two counts of murder and two counts of armed criminal action “were set aside by a Jackson County, Missouri, Circuit Judge, on grounds that the Jackson County Prosecutor violated the due process clause which forbids a state from using inconsistent irreconcilable theories to secure convictions against two or more defendants in prosecution for the same offense arising out of the same event.” Presentence Report (PSR) at ¶ 31. See also Smith v. Groose, 205 F.3d 1045, 1052 (8th Cir.2000) . The only conviction left intact- was Dixon’s
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the power to regulate the business of another and especially of a competitor is a denial of rights safeguarded by the due process clause
B. holding that use of inherently factually contradictory theories violates the principles of due process
C. holding the due process rights of one acquitted by insanity are not violated when he or she is committed on a determination of risk of danger to self or the person or property of others by a preponderance of the evidence
D. holding that circuit rule that prosecutions use of contradictory theories violates due process would fall within teagues watershed exception
E. holding the prosecutor also violated the due process rights of one of dixons accomplices jon smith by using inherently contradictory theories to obtain the convictions of smith and another of dixons accomplices anthony lytle
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.