Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
party responsible” therefore turns on which one of the two men was found more credible. This court, in reviewing administrative decisions both in and outside of the labor context, has consistently accorded substantial deference to the credibility determinations of the ALJ. See, e.g., NLRB v. Taylor Mach. Prods., Inc., 136 F.3d 507, 514 (6th Cir.1998) (“We afford even more deference to Board determinations of credibility and will not normally set aside the Board’s choice between conflicting testimony.”); Warner v. Comm’r of Soc. Sec., 375 F.3d 387, 392 (6th Cir.2004) (according “great deference” to an ALJ’s credibility determination in assessing whether an applicant’s claim of subjective pain was believable); see also Dantran, Inc. v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 171 F.3d 58, 72 (1st Cir.1999) . ALJs, after all, are the only judicial
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing a hearing officers latitude in making credibility calls
B. holding that the credibility determinations of hearing officers are afforded special deference
C. recognizing defense counsel must have wide latitude in making tactical decisions
D. recognizing the need to give trial courts latitude in making individualized security determinations
E. recognizing district courts wide latitude in imposing supervised release conditions
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.