Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
“immunity questions should be resolved as early as possible.” The State, in its answer, concedes that, although § 13A-3-23 creates an immunity defense, Watters is unable to demonstrate a clear legal right to the requested relief because, it says, the Code section includes no procedure requiring a pretrial hearing. Thus, according to the State, the trial court’s order stating its intent to consider Watters’s immunity defense “in due course” is sufficient and Watters’s petition is due to be denied. We cannot agree. Both the State and Watters acknowledge in their pleadings to this Court that the Court of Criminal Appeals, subsequent to the issuance of its order in this case, has issued opinions relevant to the issue before us. See Malone v. State, 203 So.3d 126, 131 (Ala. Crim. App. 2016) ; Harrison v. State, 203 So.3d 126, 131 (Ala.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that where use of reasonable nondeadly force causes death defendant entitled to instruction on selfdefense
B. holding that the defendant was entitled to a pretrial evidentiary hearing on his claim of immunity based on selfdefense
C. holding an evidentiary hearing on the applicability of equitable estoppel
D. holding that petitioner was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing under section 2254e2 on whether his trial counsel was ineffective in failing to seek a fitness hearing
E. holding that defendant may be entitled to selfdefense instruction even though he did not testify
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.