Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of Span and did not take his threats seriously. For example, counsel grilled Epps about his failure to immediately report Span’s threat to the staff at the Metropolitan Correction Center where Epps was detained at the time. But Epps’s testimony about “Lil Ride” showed that he had good reason to take Span seriously. Epps knew that Span had tried to coerce “Lil Ride” into recanting, and he had reason to believe, based on Span’s plot to kill “Lil Ride”, that Span would resort to violence. This knowledge explains why Epps would have recanted his statements, and why he might have hesitated to report Span’s threat to authorities. The testimony about “Lil Ride” thus tended to rehabilitate Epps and lend plausibility to his story. See United States v. Holly, 167 F.3d 393, 394-95 (7th Cir.1999) . Accordingly, we agree with appellate coun sel
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that testimony by witnesses that the defendant threatened a witness is sufficient to support acharge of retaliation
B. holding that material for witnesses need not be produced to defendant where the witnesses were not called as government witnesses at trial
C. holding that district court could admit evidence under 404b that defendant in insurance fraud case had threatened and abused witnesses in order to explain why witnesses initially told investigators defendant was not involved
D. holding that the failure to call certain witnesses was not ineffective assistance because witnesses already presented similar evidence and counsel is not required to present cumulative evidence
E. holding it was not error to admit incourt identifications for the first time without notice to defendant since witnesses had not made pretrial identifications and counsel had the opportunity to crossexamine the witnesses
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.