Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the summary denial of his motion for postconviction relief filed pursuant to Florida Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.850. We reverse the order of the t la.1992) (stating that the warnings required to comply with the self-incrimination clause of Article I, Section 9, Florida Constitution, do not have to be given in the exact form as long as an effective equivalent is given). Again based on the limited record before us, Wilford’s Sixth Amendment claim may not have merit. Even though Wilford’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel had attached to other charges, adversary judicial criminal proceedings may not have been initiated in regard to the charges of this case at the time he was interrogated by law enforcement. See Texas v. Cobb, 532 U.S. 162, 167-68, 121 S.Ct. 1335, 149 L.Ed.2d 321 (2001) . See also Smith v. State, 699 So.2d 629, 639
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that states use of informant to obtain incriminating evidence from defendant about pending charges violated defendants sixth amendment right to counsel notwithstanding that state was also investigating other charges as to which the sixth amendment right to counsel had not attached
B. holding that a defendants statements regarding offenses for which he had not been charged were admissible notwithstanding the attachment of his sixth amendment right to counsel on other charged offenses
C. holding an accuseds sixth amendment right to counsel does not attach to uncharged crimes factually related to the crime for which the defendant has been charged
D. holding that defendants substantial rights were affected by unconstitutional admission of outofcourt testimonial statements that established elements of the charged offenses
E. holding that when two underlying offenses are charged in an indictment for capital murder the state need only prove one of the two offenses to support the conviction
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.