Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
of the black leather jacket, which the court viewed as merely cumulative physical evidence. We conclude that in the circumstances of this case the denial of the right to present what would have been exculpatory evidence had consequences far more serious than the erroneous receipt of inculpatory evidence of only marginal probative force. Newman’s claimed lack of a Hispanic accent was apparently the only defense he had to offer. There may be cases in which the wrongful exclusion of such evidence might be considered harmless, but we conclude that this is not one of them. Although on retrial Newman will be entitled to offer a voice exemplar without waiving his privilege against self-incrimination, he will of course be required to establish its reliability. See Esdaille, 769 F.2d at 107 . Whether he is able to do so will be a matter
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that testimony of two experts was unreliable because they relied on the testimony of two other experts which was also unreliable
B. holding that other evidence properly admitted at trial was sufficiently strong to permit the conclusion that the improper admission of unreliable expert testimony was harmless
C. holding that testimony of defense expert on false confessions properly excluded as not sufficiently reliable
D. holding that landowners testimony based on lot method was properly excluded in condemnation case involving property  that owner proposed to develop as mobile home park where subdivision development was speculative
E. holding that proposed voice exemplar was properly excluded as unreliable
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.