Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
evidence that the State could introduce only if defendant were to testify, in which case defendant’s record would have impeached his credibility. Before trial, defendant indicated by affidavit that he wished to testify but that the lack of jury bifurcation would prevent him from doing so because of the prejudicial impact of his criminal record. -As a result of the trial court’s refusal to bifurcate the jury, defendant elected not to testify in his own defense. Consequently, the trial court’s decision not to bifurcate the jury must be evaluated not only in light of the prejudicial impact of defendant’s record on the jury’s penalty-phase deliberations but also in light of defendant’s right to testify in his defense, see Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 107 S.Ct. 2704, 97 L. Ed.2d 37 (1987) ; State v. Savage, 120 N.J. 594, 626-28, 577
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding violation of right to testify could not be harmless
B. holding right to testify was federal constitutional right
C. recognizing the right to trial by jury is a constitutional right to be given the same protections as other constitutional rights
D. recognizing defendants state and federal constitutional rights to testify
E. holding that a defendant has a constitutional right to counsel as a matter of right on direct appeal
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.