Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the purpose of proving the truthfulness of his statement, but for the purpose of rebuttal only.’ ” Id. at 412, 105 S.Ct. 2078. The trial court included a similar limiting instruction in its final instructions to the jury. Id. The Supreme Court concluded that “[t]he nonhearsay aspect of [the co-conspirator’s] confession — not to prove what happened at the murder scene but to prove what happened when [the defendant] confessed — raisefd] no Confrontation Clause concerns.” Id. at 414, 105 S.Ct. 2078 (emphasis in original). Instead, the concern was that the jury might use the co-conspirator’s statement in a manner inconsistent with the Confrontation Clause, i.e., to infer Street’s guilt even though Street had had no opportunity to cross-examine the witness. I . 648, 17 L.Ed.2d 606 (1967) ; Walder v. United States, 347 U.S. 62, 64, 74
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding previous convictions can only be used for sentence enhancement purposes under 18 usc  924e1 if the restoration of civil rights regarding such convictions expressly prohibited the possession of firearms
B. holding a sentence enhancement for two prior convictions must be based on separate criminal episodes
C. holding that statements elicited from a defendant in violation of his miranda rights could be introduced to impeach that defendants credibility when the jury was instructed that the statements were not to be considered as evidence of his guilt
D. holding that evidence of a defendants prior criminal convictions could be introduced for the purpose of sentence enhancement if the jury was instructed that the evidence could not be used for the purposes of determining guilt
E. holding that the admission of unlawfully seized evidence of a crime was admissible if the jury was instructed that the evidence could be considered only in assessing a defendants credibility and not for determining guilt
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.