Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
1972 Comm. Note (directing courts to ask whether the finder of fact “would be qualified to determine intelligently and to the best possible degree the particular issue without enlightenment from those having a specialized understanding of the subject involved in the dispute”). Although some judges may find expert testimony helpful, see, e.g., Sims v. Brown, 425 F.3d 560, 584 (9th Cir.2005) (upholding denial of a Strickland claim where eight experts testified but none addressed “prevailing legal norms”), it is within a district court’s discretion to exclude proposed expert testimony concerning a legal standard of care and to rely solely on the briefs, see LaGrand v. Stewart, 133 F.3d 1253, 1271 n. 8 (9th Cir.1998); see also Williams v. Woodford, 384 F.3d 567, 613 n. 17 (9th Cir.2004) . Because the district court was in the best
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that denial of untimely request was not abuse of discretion
B. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by determining expert witness was qualified to testify
C. holding that rejection of a proposed strickland expert was not a prejudicial abuse of discretion
D. holding failure to exercise discretion is abuse of discretion
E. holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.