Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
other evidence the effect upon the jury would be the same as if no redaction had occurred at all.”). As the Government pointed out, the Supreme Court in Richardson, 481 U.S. at 206-07, 107 S.Ct. at 1706-07, explained that Bruton was a “narrow exception” to the assumption that juries can and generally do follow limiting instructions. Government Brief at 29-30 & n. 9. The Richardson Court explained: The rule that juries are presumed to follow their instructions is a pragmatic one, rooted less in the absolute certitude that the presumption is true than in the belief that it represents a reasonable practical accommodation of the interests of the state and the defendant in the criminal justice process. On th 8 L.Ed.2d 432 (1992); United States v. Donahue, 948 F.2d 438, 444 (8th Cir.1991) ; United States v. Williams, 936 F.2d 698, 701
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that admission of nontestifying oodefendants statement to police that murder defendant came to his apartment and went in bathroom and stayed there for awhile did not violate bruton rule because statement standing alone did not clearly incriminate defendant but only became incriminating when linked with other evidence
B. holding that testimony of two experts was unreliable because they relied on the testimony of two other experts which was also unreliable
C. holding that admission of statement with references to we or they which did not directly implicate defendant did not violate defendants confrontation rights
D. holding that two or three references to everyone and they in testimony about confession did not violate bruton because testimony did not implicate the defendant expressly nor was it incriminating on its face
E. holding that defense counsels failure to object to testimony did not warrant a new trial because there was no prejudice from admission of the testimony
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.