Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
into Samuels' record would have informed Wright of the prior plea agreement. The facts of this case suggest otherwise. The prosecutor announced that Samuels would be a surprise rebuttal witness without prior notice to Wright. This was an insufficient amount of time for counsel to adequately prepare in time for trial. And in this time frame, it would have been unfair to require Wright to learn about the existence of all documentary evidence related to Samuels. See Gershman, supra, at 696. 70 . Cf. Leka v. Portuondo, 257 F.3d 89, 103 (2d Cir.2001) (finding a Brady violation where the government's disclosure prevented any "opportunity for a responsible lawyer to use the information with some degree of calculation and forethought”). 71 . See Giglio, 405 U.S. at 153-54, 92 S.Ct. 763 ; People v. Steadman, 82 N.Y.2d 1, 603 N.Y.S.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding evidence not to be material within the meaning of brady when the evidence did not eliminate the defendant as the perpetrator
B. holding that the prosecutors nondisclosure of material evidence affecting a witnesss credibility which goes uncorrected falls within the requirements of brady
C. holding that a prosecutors comment that a witnesss cooperation had convicted 23 other people impermissibly bolstered witnesss credibility through evidence outside the record
D. holding impeachment evidence falls within the brady rule
E. holding that nondisclosure of evidence undermining eyewitness identifications of the defendant by what the state identified as its two best witnesses was material under brady
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.