Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
said that it was not asking for a competency trial, and defense counsel said he was not sure that a competency hearing or trial was necessary. 2 . The parties also agreed that they would need to have a competency trial. Arid the trial court reiterated that it was suggesting the issue of competency sua sponte, "not after any kind of error or caused by the State or by' the Defense, for that matter." 3 . See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art. 36.29(a) (providing the general rule that "after the trial of any felony case begins and a juror dies or, as determined by the judge, becomes disabled from sitting at any time before the charge of the court is read to the jury, the remainder of the jury shall have the power to render the verdict”); Hill v. State, 90 S.W.3d 308, 315-16 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002) . 4 . Defense counsel later told the trial
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that double jeopardy barred the second prosecution when one of the jurors in the first trial became disabled and the trial court declared a mistrial instead of proceeding with eleven jurors
B. holding that trial court abused its discretion in failing to make a proper inquiry of jurors andor failing to strike jurors for cause after jurors explicitly expressed bias
C. holding that the trial court should have granted the defendants motion for mistrial after it was revealed that a police officer who also was a prosecution witness had sat with several jurors during a lunch break even though the witness testified that he did not discuss the business of the case with the jurors
D. holding that the double jeopardy clause precludes a second trial once the reviewing court has found the evidence legally insufficient
E. holding that a prosecution for the same offense was barred by double jeopardy where a mistrial was declared without manifest necessity
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.