Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Its proceedings are not adversary in nature, but rather consist of inquiries conducted by laymen without resort to the technicalities of trial procedure”). 21 We have held, however, that “the grand jury may request advice and that the prosecutor is authorized to explain matters of law.” Sheriff v. Keeney, 106 Nev. 213, 218, 791 P.2d 55, 58 (1990). 22 See U.S. Const. amend. V; Nev. Const. art. 1, § 8. 23 See Gordon v. Ponticello, 110 Nev. 1015, 1017-19, 879 P.2d 741, 743 (1994) (stating that discovery does not fall within the scope of rights afforded to persons under grand jury investigation); Bright, 108 Nev. at 502, 835 P.2d at 785 (declining to extend the right to counsel to indigent grand jury targets). 24 Accord State v. Augustin M., 68 P.3d 182, 187-88 (N.M. Ct. App. 2003)
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that new mexicos rule that the state must present known evidence that directly negates a targets guilt does not extend to instructions respecting possible defenses
B. holding that new evidence must be evidence that is not merely cumulative
C. holding that rule b attachment does not extend to afteracquired property
D. holding that the evidence did not present the proof necessary to warrant the findings of guilt and disbarment
E. holding that plaintiff must present such evidence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.