Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
joined the conspiracy.” Id. at 194 (citations omitted.) Even Witkin, however, notes that a defendant is not liable for the substantive offenses committed by his coconspirators prior to his joining the conspiracy. See Witkin & Epstein § 96. 18 . Appellants' multiple conspiracies arguments are focused on counts three and four. They also claim, however, that the evidence underlying their convictions on count two was simply a conglomeration of the evidence presented on counts three and four. This argument is flatly contradicted by the prosecution’s case, which involved evidence of numerous predicate conspiracies and overt acts ibel approach has been applied by at least one other Ninth Circuit panel, in another case involving the Mexican Mafia. Shryock, 342 F.3d 948, 985-86 (9th Cir.2003) . 20 . Schoenberg’s challenge to count three is
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that even if the statements were improperly admitted any error was harmless since there was overwhelming evidence connecting the defendant to the conspiracy
B. holding that because trial court actually gave part of a jury charge that appellant claimed was improperly omitted and because remainder of courts charge adequately defined one of the legal terms at issue the courts jury charge taken as a whole was not misleading and did not constitute reversible error
C. holding under a plain error analysis that a failure to charge the jury with an essential element did not warrant reversal of the conviction where the evidence supporting that element was overwhelming
D. holding that overwhelming evidence of element of crime rendered miranda error harmless when improperly admitted statement went to same element
E. holding that jury instruction improperly defined element of rico conspiracy charge by not using language consistent with the operation or management test but concluding that the error was harmless
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.