Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
487 U.S. 1242, 108 S.Ct. 2918, 101 L.Ed.2d 949 (1988); Julius v. Johnson, 840 F.2d 1533, 1540 (11th Cir.) (allowing double-counting of felony-murder factor), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 960, 109 S.Ct. 404, 102 L.Ed.2d 392 (1988). I. Improper Prosecution Arguments Coe cites four statements made by the prosecution at the sentencing stage that he claims were improper. First, Coe complains that the prosecutor improperly injected his expertise into his death-penalty argument. The prosecutor said that he took his decision to seek the death penalty very seriously; that the decision was difficult; that he had only ever requested the death penalty once before. Coe cites Eleventh Circuit precedent that is directly on point. See, e.g., Brooks v. Kemp, 762 F.2d 1383, 1410 (11th Cir.1985) (en banc) . But Kemp ultimately held the error to be
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding very similar commentsto be prejudicial
B. holding that the special needs exception did not apply to very similar facts
C. recognizing similar duties
D. holding that explicit finding that probative value of similar transactions outweighed their prejudicial impact is not required
E. holding that erroneous admission of improper and prejudicial evidence did not require reversal because the jury would have returned a verdict of guilty against the defendant even without the prejudicial testimony
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.