Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
attorney] procured the indictment. See Ray, 561 S.W.2d at 481. The record also shows that appellant used this same argument in requesting his motion in arrest of judgment. But in Ray, the Court of Criminal Appeals held that the appellant failed to meet his burden of showing a violation of the sanctity of the grand jury proceedings because the evidence showed that no one other than grand jurors were present during the grand jury’s voting or deliberations. See id. Therefore, ... the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to grant a hearing on this motion because appellant did not argue that [the district attorney] was present during the grand jury’s vote or deliberations. See id. Id. at *7; see also Walter v. State, 209 S.W.3d 722, 737, 739-40 (Tex. App.—Tex-arkana 2006) , rev’d. on other grounds, 267 S.W.3d 883 (Tex.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that right was available in grand jury proceedings
B. holding that under california law tjestifying before a grand jury charged with investigating corruption is one part of an officers job and therefore any speech huppert gave during his grand jury testimony was pursuant to his duties as a police officer
C. holding that the defendants were not denied their right to be present during the peremptory strike phase of jury selection where they were present during voir dire had a chance to confer with counsel before the jury was impaneled and were present in the courtroom when the peremptory strikes were given actual effect by the clerks reading off the list
D. holding that the state violated a statute by allowing the presence of nonwitness police officers during grand jury proceedings but concluding that because those officers were not present during deliberations the indictments were not void
E. holding that the government is not required to present exculpatory evidence to the grand jury
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.