Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
example, at a status hearing on November 7, 2004, which was only approximately one week before the evidentiary hearing, Over-ton’s counsel made no argument that the ordered DNA testing had not yet been completed. This is consistent with the State’s argument that Overton withdrew his motion for a continuance at a status hearing on October 29, 2004. Moreover, even if the ordered DNA testing had not been completed, there was no undue prejudice to Overton. Overton has not asserted any reason why DNA testing of the crime scene swabs will produce different results than the other DNA testing, which linked Overton to the scene. Overton’s argument that DNA testing of these crime scene swabs would have changed the outcome is purely speculative. See Martin v. State, 455 So.2d 370, 372 (Fla.1984) . Overton’s claim that the trial court’s denial
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the defendant could not establish prejudice for trial counsels failure to hire an expert when the experts testimony would not have changed the nature of the states evidence
B. holding the defendants claim that he was denied the right to testify was appropriate for direct review when the record was adequately developed to permit full consideration of the defendants claim the pertinent facts were undisputed a pcr hearing was not necessary to resolve a factual dispute and would not aid in the application of the law and the defendants claim was presented not as an ineffective assistance of counsel claim but rather as an error committed by the trial court in excluding the defendants testimony which was not an appropriate basis for an ineffective assistance of counsel claim
C. holding that there was no brady violation because the exculpatory effect of the disputed documents was merely speculative
D. holding that the trial court committed no abuse of discretion in denying the appointment of the defendants requested expert as there was no undue prejudice to the defendant because the defendants claim on the predicted effect of the experts testimony was purely speculative
E. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendants motion to dismiss on de minimis grounds where his expert witness testimony was inadmissible
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.