Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
also revealed that Cabral erroneously informed the FBI that Seda traveled to Saudi Arabia for a Hajj in 2000. Draft interview summaries revealed additional inconsistencies. For example, one draft summary of an interview with Richard contained the statement that “[Richard] Cabral did not recall Sedaghaty discussing the topic of Kosovo or supporting mujahedin there” while another draft of the summary excluded that same statement. Another early draft revealed a conflict about the amount of the supposed payments that were collected at the end of the Hajj. Without the suppressed materials, Seda’s counsel was severely limited on cross examination, unable to explore, let alone establish, grounds for Cabral’s possible bias. See United States v. Schoneberg, 396 F.3d 1036, 1042 (9th Cir.2005) . Taken together with the substantive issues
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case
B. recognizing that the defense must be given the opportunity to crossexamine a witness and explore any motive to falsely testify in order to assist government
C. holding that the jury could have reasonably inferred the requisite intent to induce the witness to lie or testify falsely from the defendants statements to the witness
D. holding that defendant had ample opportunity to crossexamine government witness including the terms of a plea agreement and that further impeachment was speculative and minimal at best
E. holding that testimonial hearsay statements of a witness who does not appear at trial are inadmissible under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to crossexamine the witness
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.