Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
the significance and importance of the ability to poll the jury); State v. Behnke, 155 Wis.2d 796, 456 N.W.2d 610, 612 (1990). This does not mean, however, that Appellant was deprived of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel: even if Mr. Durst’s substitution for Mr. Mozenter failed to conform to the criminal procedural rules, it does not follow that a deprivation of counsel occurred, as Appellant was in fact represented by Mr. Durst when the jury returned to the courtroom and announced its verdict. Appellant does not allege that Mr. Durst was not a member in good standing of the Pennsylvania Bar, that a conflict of interest or some other defect prevented Mr. Durst from representing him, see Holloway v. Arkansas, 435 U.S. 475, 484, 98 S.Ct. 1173, 1178-79, 55 L.Ed.2d 426 (1978) , or that Mr. Durst was otherwise hindered from
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing that the sixth amendment guarantees a defendant the right to counsel and the right to waive counsel
B. holding that the defendant was deprived of his sixth amendment right to counsel where appointed counsels representation presented a conflict of interest
C. holding that to demonstrate that a conflict of interest violated his sixth amendment rights a defendant must establish that an actual conflict of interest adversely affected his lawyers performance
D. holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial
E. holding that the defendant validly waived right to conflictfree representation where the defendant knew a conflict existed its effect on his defense and his right to have other counsel appointed
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.