Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
his motion for a new venire. During voir dire, the defense counsel asked the judge for a sidebar, during which he orally moved to dismiss the venire. The defense counsel stated that there were only 3 or 4 black members on the 44-person venire. Stating that there were also "other Eurasian people in the voir dire panel,” the judge denied the defense counsel’s motion. The judge began the proceedings the next day by citing People v. Peeples (1993), 155 Ill. 2d 422, 616 N.E.2d 294, in support of his ruling the day before. At this time, the defense counsel complained that the only black jury member was one whom the parties had selected as a potential alternate juror, but the judge did not change his ruling. There is no written motion for a new venire in the record, althou 1 N.E.2d 1263 . Even if we were to review the merits of the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that defendant did not breach oral agreement because among other things the plaintiff had not established that the term in question was part of the oral contract
B. holding that the defendants oral motion challenging the venire was insufficient to preserve the issue for review
C. holding part performance of an oral agreement necessary to take the oral agreement out of the statute of frauds must be consistent only  with the existence of the alleged oral contract
D. holding that an oral challenge to the venire is insufficient
E. holding that when the courts oral statements in the plea colloquy conflict with the written agreement the courts oral statements control
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.