Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
prosecution has not met its heavy burden of demonstrating that Scheetz’s continued representation will cause him to be an unsworn witness that will impair the fact finding process or prejudice the prosecution. 2. Prosecution rebuttal witness Melton also challenges Judge Scoles’s conclusion that Scheetz must be disqualified from representing Melton because he may be called as a prosecution rebuttal witness. The applicable Iowa Rule of Professional Conduct provides: Rule 32:3.7. Lawyer as witness (a) A lawyer shall not act as advocate at a trial in which the lawyer is likely to be a necessary witness unless: (1) the testimony relates to an uncontested issue; (2) the testimony relates to the nature and value of legal services rendered in the case; or (3) disqualifica 888, 891-92 (2005) ; Weigel v. Farmers Ins. Co., 356 Ark. 617, 158
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that disputed questions of fact and all ambiguities in state law must be resolved in favor of the nonmoving party
B. holding that evidence that defendant plaintiffs former client consistently failed to pay other lawyers was relevant to prove the element of intent to defraud
C. holding that jurisdiction exists for determining if disputed facts are material
D. holding under georgia rule of professional conduct 37a that party seeking disqualification must demonstrate that the lawyers testimony is relevant to disputed material questions of fact and that there is no other evidence available to prove those facts
E. holding that a lawyer is a necessary witness where the lawyers testimony is relevant to disputed material questions of fact and where there is no other evidence available to prove those facts
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.