Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Having noted the substantially identical testimony, however, I do not find it necessary to decide whether the statement relates to this other excerpt. 51 . El-Hage argues that "Mr. al Fadl's claim that al Qaeda sought to fight the U.S. in Somalia represented the only evidence of any violence al Qaeda contemplated against the U.S. prior to Mr. El-Hage’s return to the United States in September 1997.” As discussed, infra, this argument is entirely without merit. 52 . I note that, although the value of the actual 3500 Material is quite minimal, even this minimal value would likely require a new trial if the Government's failure to produce the statements had been truly intentional, or under circumstances justifying a presumption of intentional suppression. See Hilton, 521 F.2d at 166 ; United States v. Gil, 297 F.3d 93, 101 (2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a new trial is warranted if the evidence is merely material or favorable to the defense where the government has either 1 deliberately suppressed evidence or 2 ignored evidence of such high value that it could not have escaped its attention
B. holding that suppression of evidence by the prosecution of evidence favorable to the defendant upon request violates the defendants right to due process where the evidence is material
C. holding that suppression by prosecutor of evidence favorable to an accused violates due process where evidence is material to either guilt or punishment
D. holding that new evidence must be evidence that is not merely cumulative
E. holding that new evidence is evidence not previously of record and not merely cumulative of other evidence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.