Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
119 S.Ct. 1307). Because Jimarez refused to testify at Defendant Rivas-Macias’ trial, the proceeding at issue here, Defendant cannot establish that Jimarez engaged in a testimonial waiver of the privilege. Defendant’s argument to the contrary is unpersuasive. The privilege against self-incrimination protects against a party forcing an individual to adopt, at trial, “his unsworn out-of-court confession.” Silverstein, 732 F.2d at 1347; see also United States v. James, 609 F.2d 36, 45 (2d Cir.1979) (ruling that an individual “had not waived his privilege” by making “previous statements to the FBI and the grand jury” because a “waiver of the privilege in one proceeding does not affect a witness’ rights in another proceeding”); United States v. Diecidue, 603 F.2d 535, 552 (5th Cir.1979) . That is exactly what Defendant Rivas-Macias
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing the right to waive a jury trial
B. holding an individuals admission to a government agent prior to trial that he had previously committed perjury did not waive his privilege to invoke the fifth amendment as to that matter at trial
C. holding that voluntary testimony before a grand jury did not waive the privilege at trial because it is settled that a waiver of the fifth amendment privilege is limited to the particular proceeding in which the waiver occurs
D. holding that the perjury by a key government witness irrespective of whether the government knew of the perjury at the time of trial infected the trial proceedings and required reversal
E. holding that the fifth amendment did not apply to tribal government
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.