Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
doors. Reddock fled from the house as police were arriving. 9 . At the time, Boyd’s co-defendants included appellant Walker and Owens. 10 . Boyd’s additional argument, that he was entitled to a separate trial because of Easter-ling's and Travis's testimony that they knew Boyd from selling drugs, has no merit. This could have come in even in a separate trial. For example, the testimony that Easterling blurted — that he and Boyd "used to hustle together” — came in as the prosecutor was asking questions designed to elicit that “a person who actually knew [Easterling] [and presumably knew that Easterling sometimes had large sums of cash] was Brian Boyd.” 11 . At that point, the defense had stricken seven white jurors. 12 . See also Robinson v. United States, 878 A.2d 1273, 1277 (D.C.2005) . 13 . The court did not make a finding about
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a criminal defendant can bring a third party challenge to the peremptory striking of jurors based on race whether or not he is of the same race as the jurors who are struck
B. holding that a violation of  1981 requires purposeful race discrimination
C. holding that reasons for excusing black jurors that were objectively contradicted by the record provided evidence of purposeful discrimination
D. holding race and gender discrimination claim barred
E. holding that tire purposeful exclusion of prospective jurors because they are black and female is discrimination on account of both race and gender in direct violation of batson 
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.