Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
was a probability of reaching a verdict. Further, the district court admonished jurors to answer these two questions with a simple “yes or no.” It did not attempt to target the holdout jurors or to determine which way the votes fell. If anything, the district court was attempting to avoid this effect. Also, there were no further instructions or lectures from the judge, and despite defense counsel’s own suggestion, the judge did not place a time limit on deliberations. See State v. Nelson, 63 N.M. 428, 433, 321 P.2d 202, 205 (1958) (pointing out that the district court’s repeated reminders of what jurors said on voir dire regarding death penalty was coercive on the one holdout juror); see also Pirch v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co., 80 N.M. 323, 326-27, 455 P.2d 189, 192-93 (Ct.App.1969) . {57} Nor is there any evidence of juror
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a 16 month relationship was not of sufficient length
B. holding new trial required after judges ex parte communication with jury in response to jury question during deliberations because there was no way of reaching a conclusion about what transpired other than by adopting the judges recollection
C. holding that under the circumstances the deception was so unfair as to be coercive
D. holding that judges remarks relating to length of trial expense involved importance of case and setting time limit on deliberations was coercive
E. holding that allen charge given by court was coercive and required a new trial
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.