Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
doctrine. Maurice Turner was listed as a potential witness in the State’s proposed voir dire, and the prosecutor acknowledged in his opening statement that the jury would hear from Mitchell’s alleged cohorts Antonio Corprew and Lewis “Man-Man” Cochran. In addition, the jury heard about Wali Henderson, the driver of the Hummer, an initial suspect in the shooting, and the jury also learned of Darnell Carter and Andre Chase, the two men who led police to the shotgun. Because it is within the scope of permissible closing argument for counsel to draw inferences from the evidence admitted at trial, which includes the ability to comment on an absence of such evidence, defense counsel’s closing argument was not improper. See Eley v. State, 288 Md. 548, 553, 419 A.2d 384, 386-87 (1980) ; Wise v. State, 132 Md.App. 127, 146, 751 A.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that comment by prosecutor in closing argument that defense counsel did not produce evidence of the defendants innocence was not a comment on the defendants failure to testify
B. holding that the failure of defense counsel to call a corroborating witness resulted in prejudice to the defendant
C. recognizing the right of a defendant to comment upon the failure of the state to produce evidence
D. holding that it was permissible for prosecutor to comment on the general failure of the defense to produce any evidence
E. holding that defense counsel may call attention to the states failure to produce evidence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.