Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
although specifically invited to do so, the State has presented no evidence from the record that Raphael’s attorney knew of the nature of the ex parte hearing and yet deliberately chose not to object. To the contrary, the record shows that the trial court did not fully inform Raphael’s attorney of the nature or content of the hearing. Based on the trial court’s abridged account to Raphael’s attorney of its contact with I.W., along with the lack of support for the theory that Gould knew the full extent of the constitutional errors and deliberately chose not to object, we cannot say that Raphael’s failure to object to the ex parte hearing and to I.W.’s testimony was tactical. Because the trial court committed plain error, we recognize Raphael’s constitutional claims on (E.D.Mich.19.72) ; cf. J & L Diversified Enters. v. Municipality
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding defendant waived right to challenge incourt identification when he admitted guilt at punishment phase of trial
B. holding prosecutions failure to disclose promise of leniency to witness provided in exchange for that witnesss testimony violated due process
C. holding that the polices torturing of a witness until he provided incourt testimony incriminating the defendant violated the defendants right to due process
D. holding that a conviction violated due process because the prosecutor knowingly allowed a government witness to commit perjury
E. holding that the defendants due process rights were violated when the trial judge singled out the only defense witness and indicated to that witness that he expected the witness to he and would personally ensure that the witness was prosecuted for perjury and thereby effectively drove that witness off the stand
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.