Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
624, 627 (relying on NRC’s post-trial report to support position); ante at 175-176, 699 A.2d at 624 (citing post-trial cases to support general acceptance of polymarker testing). Despite the majority’s acceptance of de novo review, the majority carefully circumscribes such review to exclude all of the evi dence that does not support its ruling. See, e.g., ante at 180, 699 A.2d at 626 (noting that “the record does not reveal whether dot-intensity analysis can be performed on a DQ Alpha test,” but ignoring evidence that it can be); ante at 181-182, 699 A.2d at 626-627 (acknowledging that the HBGG result obtained for the mixed sample is unexplainable by dot-intensity analysis, but refusing to explore inconsistency until post-conviction-relief proceedings); ante at 183-184, 699 A.2d at 628 ; ante at 193, 699 A.2d at 633 (“It is too late
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that dotintensity analysis provides an opening for crossexamination and contradictory expert testimony but refusing to remand the case for a hearing to develop such evidence
B. recognizing that independent analysis is  the only means by which the defendant can defend against expert testimony by the state 
C. recognizing that the need for the expert was so great that the decision to preclude the expert effectively amounted to dismissal of case
D. holding that expert testimony is unnecessary where the case is not a case in which lay jurors would be unable to grasp the issues without expert assistance
E. holding that a request for funds for expert testimony must show inter alia that the testimony is crucial and is subject to varying expert opinions
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.