Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
hearing “if the substance of the affidavit purporting to contain newly discovered evidence, when taken at face value, is insufficient to entitle the petitioner to the relief requested.” Scherf v. State, 788 N.W.2d 504, 508 (Minn.2010). To prove a claim by clear and convincing evidence requires a party’s evidence to be “unequivocal, intrinsically probable and credible, and free from frailties.” Gassier v. State, 787 N.W.2d 575, 583 (Minn.2010). The innocence prong in subdivision 4(b)(2) requires “more than an uncertainty” about the petitioner’s guilt. Riley, 819 N.W.2d at 170. Instead, estab lishing “actual innocence” requires the petitioner to prove it is “more likely than not that no reasonable jury would convict.” Id; see also Miles v. State, 800 N.W.2d 778, 783 (Minn.2011) . We conclude that Brown has failed to meet the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that despite the lack of a statutory requirement that severe child abuse be shown by clear and convincing evidence due to the consequences of such a finding the clear and convincing standard must be applied
B. holding that the defendants evidence did not qualify as newly discovered evidence
C. holding that a petitioner must demonstrate that the newly discovered evidence on its face would prove the petitioners innocence by a clear and convincing standard
D. holding that a bad faith claim must be met through the clear and convincing evidence standard
E. holding seventh state petition for postconviction relief which was based on newly discovered evidence but rejected by the state courts because the evidence was not newly discovered was properly filed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.