Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
was that, when credibility becomes the ultimate issue in a case, it is unfairly prejudicial for the fact finder to learn of any unrelated facts that might potentially affect the defendant’s credibility. This reasoning is applicable here. In this rape case, the witnesses’ credibility was the central issue for the trial judge to determine. We note that Delaware courts have been reluctant to disqualify a judge under Canon 3C(1) and the Los test. See, e.g., Robinson v. State, 869 A.2d 328, 2005 WL 535007, 2005 Del. Lexis 72 (Feb. 14, 2005) (finding there was no sufficient appearance of bias when the defendant had been accused of threatening a superior court judge who later presided over the defendant’s sentencing hearing on an unrelated matter); Johnson v. State, 797 A.2d 1206 (2002) ; Steigler v. State, 277 A.2d 662, 668
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the burden is on the defendant when the validity of the warrant is challenged
B. holding that there is no appearance of impropriety sufficient to warrant recusal when the judge learned negative facts about the defendant from a social gathering held by a prosecutor in a former case involving the defendant
C. holding recusal not required
D. holding that the jurors alleged discussion about the possibility that the defendant would hire someone to kill them was inadmissible because the defendant had not shown that the jury learned of the threat from an outside source
E. holding that an appearance of impropriety existed where the deputy district attorney had an altercation with the defendant at the time of the defendants arrest
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.