Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
to show bias or motive to lie it probable would have effected the trial’s outcome. In short, the Confrontation Clause error cannot be deem harmless under either the Chapman or Brecht standard. Brief in Supp. of Delayed Application for Leave to Appeal Denial of Mot. for Relief of Judgment at 20-21. As mentioned, it is not clear why the trial but only if its application trenches upon a defendant’s confrontation or due process rights. See Vasquez v. Jones, 496 F.3d 564, 573-74 (6th Cir.2007); Boggs v. Collins, 226 F.3d 728, 736-37 (6th Cir.2000). Those rights can be curtailed if the State has articulated “very substantial” interests served by the limitation on those rights. Vasquez, 496 F.3d at 573; see also Chambers v. Mississippi 410 U.S. 284, 295, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973) . That begs the question here. The Sixth
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing defendants right to confront witnesses with adequate crossexamination
B. holding that although there is a right to appeal a change in permanency plan that right is not absolute and does not require the stay of a tpr proceeding
C. holding the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment extends the right to jury trial to defendants in serious criminal cases in state courts
D. recognizing that the beyondareasonabledoubt standard of proof is appropriate in criminal cases due to the gravity of the private interests affected and the severe societal loss that occurs when an individual is erroneously subject to criminal punishment
E. holding that the right to confront and to crossexamine is not absolute and may in appropriate cases bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.