Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
coupled with the petitioner’s "diminished mental capacities,” established prejudice); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362, 396, 120 S.Ct. 1495, 146 L.Ed.2d 389 (2000) ("Counsel failed to introduce available evidence that [the petitioner] was ‘borderline mentally retarded' and did not advance beyond sixth grade in school.” (citations omitted)); see also Sears v. Upton, — U.S. -, 130 S.Ct. 3259, 3267, 177 L.Ed.2d 1025 (2010) (vacating the Supreme Court of Georgia’s decision because it improperly analyzed prejudice and noting that "[a] proper analysis of prejudice under Strickland would have taken into account the newly uncovered evidence of [the petitioner’s] ‘significant’ mental and psychological impairments"); Porter v. McCollum, 558 U.S. 30, 43-44, 130 S.Ct. 447, 175 L.Ed.2d 398 (2009) . 97 . See Boyd v. Allen, 592 F.3d 1274, 1299
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that because the petitioner failed in the petition to set forth facts known to petitioner or state that petitioner has no knowledge of facts regarding the name and address of any judicially appointed guardian or person or agency awarded custody of the child by a court and failed to attach the existing custody order to the petition it was facially defective and did not confer subject matter jurisdiction upon the trial court
B. holding that the state courts determination that the petitioner could not show prejudice because he did not allege that the witness was available to testify was a reasonable application of federal law to the facts of the case
C. holding that the petitioner established prejudice and noting that the jury might find mitigating the intense stress and mental and emotional toll that extensive combat experience in the korean war took on the petitioner and that the courts did not consider testimony regarding the existence of a brain abnormality and cognitive defects
D. holding that rule 27 is not appropriate where the petitioner seeks discovery of unknown information that the petitioner hopes will assist it in the future when the petitioner applies for judicial relief
E. holding that the state court ruling was objectively unreasonable where prosecution failed to present sufficient evidence that the petitioner murdered a known drug dealer although the state established that the petitioner planned to rob drug dealers for drugs or money the victim was a known drug dealer who kept drugs in his freezer and that freezer was open and empty after the homicide the petitioner and the victim had engaged in drug transactions in the past the petitioner had a motive because he had seen the victim make a pass at the petitioners girlfriend and the petitioner had possessed and once purchased the murder weapon and a similar gun was seen in his home two weeks before the murder evidence placing the petitioner at the scene was conspicuously absent leaving only a reasonable speculation that the petitioner was present
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.