Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
1998); Dixon v. Dixon, 747 P.2d 1169, 1175 n. 5 (Alaska 1987). 11 . 666 P.2d 438 (Alaska App.1983). 12 . See id. at 450. 13 . See id. 14 . Id. 15 . See id. 16 . Id. at 451; see also Jones v. State, 576 P.2d 997, 1001 (Alaska 1978) ("Having specified a particular purpose for the offer, Jones is not in a position to now claim error because the evidence might have been admissible on other grounds."). 17 . See, e.g., Trobough v. French, 803 P.2d 384, 385 (Alaska 1990) (where a litigant failed to object to her adversary’s conduct during trial and never requested a mistrial, the trial court abused its discretion in granting the new trial because the plaintiff did not "formally object to the questioned acts at the time they were committed"); Moss v. State, 620 P.2d 674, 677 (Alaska 1980) ; Petersen v. State, 838 P.2d 812, 816 (Alaska
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that defendant waived his blakely claim as issue on appeal by failing to raise it in his initial brief
B. holding that defendant waived his confrontation rights by threatening witness not to testify
C. holding that it was incumbent upon counsel to renew his attempt to obtain the witness testimony and that by failing to do so defendant waived his request
D. holding that witness grand jury testimony was admissible when defendant waived his constitutional right of confrontation by making witness unavailable by threats to his life
E. holding that the defendant waived an argument by failing to raise it in his appellants brief
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.