Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
order to determine whether the comments can be considered to be harmless. Accordingly, the Government asks the Court to either conduct an evidentiary hearing or allow the parties to interview the jurors themselves concerning the nature of Judge Riley’s ex parte contact. II. APPLICABLE LAW Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33 provides that “the court on motion of a defendant may grant a new trial to that defendant if required in the interests of justice.” Id. “Probably the most frequent basis for a Rule 33 motion-and the only one specifically mentioned in the rule-is one ‘based on the ground of newly discovered eviden preponderance of the evidence. United States v. Caro-Quintero, 769 F.Supp. 1564, 1580 (C.D.Cal.1991); see also United States v. Tarpley, 945 F.2d 806, 811 (5th Cir.1991); see also United States v. Cousins, 842 F.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that to reopen a case an alien must show that the new evidence would likely change the result
B. holding that a defendant must make a colorable showing that an ex parte communication occurred
C. holding that prejudice must be shown from an ex parte communication
D. holding that the government must show only that a defendant had knowledge of the reporting requirements and acted to avoid them
E. holding that the defendant must show that improper communication of extrinsic information had likely occurred
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.