Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
changes in [his] version of events might be forthcoming.” Id., 357 Ill.Dec. 18, 962 N.E.2d at 933. The court additionally took issue with the trial court’s restrictions on counsel during the cross-examination, noting that the trial court had sustained objections to defense counsel’s cross-examination that inhibited his ability to adequately cross-examine the witness. Id. Accordingly, the court concluded that the trial court erred in admitting the preliminary hearing testimony at trial. Id. We recognize that some jurisdictions have endorsed a complete ban on the use of preliminary hearing testimony at trial, while others have been more permissive of the inclusion of such testimony, based on the nature of the proceedings. See, e.g., People v. Fry, 92 P.3d 970, 972 (Colo.2004) (en banc) ; State v. Lopez, 150 N.M. 179, 258 P.3d 458,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the state has no obligation to provide adequate housing
B. holding that because restitution hearings are a part of sentencing and have nothing to do with a defendants guilt or innocence the rules of evidence do not apply
C. holding that confrontation clause protections do not extend to sentencing hearings
D. recognizing that the federal rules of evidence do not apply to sentencing hearings
E. holding preliminary hearings in colorado do not provide adequate opportunity for crossexamination
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.