Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
S.Ct. 1544 — is equally applicable whether the reversal occurs in the defendant’s own appeal or in someone else’s appeal, so long as it occurs before the decision in the defendant’s appeal is rendered. If the appellate court’s opinion determines the law and finds error, the error by definition is plain “at the time of appellate consideration,” id., and clear “under current law.” Olano, 507 U.S. at 734, 113 S.Ct. 1770. (Emphases added.) It would be anomalous and arbitrary to hold otherwise, for as soon as the opinion were to issue, it would be precedent that would establish both “error” and “plainness” in all other pending direct appeals by similarly situated appellants raising the same plain error claim. See Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 328, 107 S.Ct. 708, 93 L.Ed.2d 649 (1987) . We conclude that the Crawford error in this
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding newly announced rules of constitutional criminal procedure must apply retroactively to all cases state or federal pending on direct review or not yet final with no exception
B. holding that all newly declared rules must be applied retroactively to all criminal eases pending on direct review
C. holding that a new rule for conducting criminal prosecutions should be applied to all cases pending on direct review or not yet final
D. holding that a new rule for the conduct of criminal prosecutions is to be applied retroactively to all cases  pending on direct review  with no exception for cases in which the new rule constitutes a clear break with the past
E. holding that batson does apply retroactively to cases pending on direct review
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.