Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
States v. Theriault, 440 F.2d 713, 715 (5th Cir.1971) (same). In the section 3006A(e) context, we have remanded to the district court for adherence to the statute. Hamlet, 456 F.2d at 1285; Theriault, 440 F.2d at 715. However, the guarantees of section 3006A(e) are distinct in at least one important respect: the statute provides a defendant expert assistance for preparation for his trial, and provision of those statutory guarantees therefore takes on a constitutional dimension not present in collateral habeas corpus proceedings. Compare Theriault, 440 F.2d at 716-717 (Wisdom, J., concurring) (invoking indigent criminal defendant’s constitutional right to court-appointed experts to assist with defense) with Murray v. Giarratano, 492 U.S. 1, 10, 109 S.Ct. 2765, 2770, 106 L.Ed.2d 1 (1989) . The fact that there is no constitutional
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that even capital prisoners have no constitutional right to counsel in habeas cases
B. holding teague applies to capital cases
C. recognizing the common practice of substituting specialized capital counsel for habeas petitions filed by capital defendants
D. recognizing constitutional right to effective counsel
E. holding no right to counsel for capital defendants in state habeas proceedings
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.