Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
is insufficient ground for diversion from the presumption set forth in Holmes. The trial court is afforded the discretion to determine whether a sufficient showing has been made to necessitate questioning by the court on whether juror exposure actually transpired. Pure conjecture that jurors might inadvertently violate admonitions not to read outside newspaper articles is insufficient to require court ex- animation of the jurors. See People v. Green, 323 Mich. 128, 35 N.W.2d 142 (1948). The Holmes presumption is sufficient to permit the trial court to deny a request to question the jury unless the court has reason to believe that such inquiry would be fruitful. See United States v. Pallais, 921 F.2d 684, 686 (7th Cir.1990); United States v. Thornton, 746 F.2d 39, 50 (D.C.Cir.1984) . IV The majority finds that the reasonable
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that trial court not required to conduct a voir dire on counsels unsubstantiated suspicion where issue was whether jurors had overheard any part of a bench conversation
B. holding that the extent to which parties may examine prospective jurors on voir dire lies within the trial judges discretion
C. holding that the jurors failure to remember particular facts inquired about on voir dire and the jurors misunderstanding of voir dire questions do not constitute probable prejudice
D. holding that absence of defendants from part of voir dire discussing trial publicity with prospective jurors was error under rule 43
E. holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.