Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
an expert voice identification analysis because his “decision on the trial strategy made that motion unnecessary.” He also testified that, to his knowledge, there was no local expert witness but that he "made the strategic choice before needing to attempt to locate an expert.” 7 . While none of our previous cases explicitly hold that a failure to investigate can be deficient only if such failure leads to the exclusion of admissible evidence, the underlying assumption in our prior cases is that an investigation would have resulted in, at the very least, admissible evidence. See, e.g., Moore v. Johnson, 194 F.3d at 604 (finding failure to investigate defendant's background and the facts underlying an "accidental shooting” theory was professionally unreasonable); Bryant, 28 F.3d at 1418 ; Loyd, 977 F.2d at 157-59 (holding failure to
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that there was not deficient performance with regard to the failure to investigate the alibi defense claim because the available testimony provided at best an incomplete alibi as the testimony still allowed for a two to threehour window for the defendant to commit the murder
B. holding that the failure to recognize every possible legal argument did not render counsels performance constitutionally deficient
C. recognizing that defendant must show 1 that counsels performance was deficient and 2 that counsels errors prejudiced the defense
D. holding counsels failure to investigate alibi witness and eyewitnesses to the crime amounted to constitutionally deficient performance
E. holding that counsels performance was deficient for failing to investigate readily available evidence of mental impairment
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.