Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the nature and limits of the expert’s testimony. Richey, 498 F.3d at 362. Fautenberry’s counsel could not be faulted for not diagnosing Fautenberry’s mental impairments on their own, but once they decided to present a psychologist to the sentencing panel, they were under an obligation to understand the basics of their witness’s testimony. See Richey, 498 F.3d at 362-63; Skaggs v. Parker, 235 F.3d 261, 269 (6th Cir.2000) (stating that counsel had “a responsibility to present meaningful mitigating evidence” when the court concluded that it was ineffective assistance of counsel when defense attorneys called a neurop-scyhologist who had falsified his credentials and whom counsel knew had previous ly done a laughable job at the first trial); Driscoll v. Delo, 71 F.3d 701, 709 (8th Cir.1995) . Because they failed to grasp the basics of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that it was not error to allow the government to introduce urinalysis laboratory results from a california laboratory through a probation officer who had not prepared the report and without live testimony from the laboratory technicians because the hearsay was reliable and the proposed testimony was of little value
B. holding that issuing judge may draw reasonable inferences from the material presented in the warrant application
C. holding that an attorney was ineffective for failing to pursue a voluntary intoxication defense because he did not understand the elements
D. holding that defense counsel was defective for failing to understand the laboratory tests performed and the inferences that one could logically draw from the results when challenging the states expert
E. recognizing that police officers can draw inferences from prior experience
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.