Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
had not been made. Id. at 1310. However, he also stated his view “that from a purely technical standpoint a public defender may appear as ‘next friend’ with as much justification as the mother of [one or another capital defendant].” Id. As noted above, there is no issue of competence in this case; the reason for seeking next friend standing is inaccessibility, and the government has conceded that. There being no “technical” impediment to appointing a lawyer to serve as next friend, it is not surprising that courts have done so in appropriate cases. See, e.g., Miller ex rel. Jones v. Stewart, 231 F.3d 1248 (9th Cir.2000) (granting next friend status to lawyer seeking to stay execution and remanding for hearing on defendant’s competence); Ford v. Haley, 195 F.3d 603, 624 (11th Cir.1999) ; In re Cockrum, 867 F.Supp. 494, 495
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that lawyer who had represented petitioner for years was as fit as a relative to serve as next friend
B. holding that a choice of law provision in a lease did not serve as a basis for jurisdiction
C. recognizing first english requirement was not met where trial counsel represented petitioner on direct appeal
D. holding that there is no constitutional right for a represented defendant to act as cocounsel
E. recognizing that the intent that of rule 1070j is to serve as a case management tool and not as a severe sanction 
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.