Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Error If a “[federal] court finds that the state court engaged in an unreasonable application of established law, resulting in constitutional error, it must next consider whether such error was harmless.” Howard, 406 F.3d at 122 (citations omitted). Asked must be whether the application of the law “had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict.” O’Neal v. McAninch, 513 U.S. 432, 115 S.Ct. 992, 994, 130 L.Ed.2d 947 (1995) (citations omitted). “When a [federal judge in a habeas proceeding] has grave doubt about whether a trial error ... had substantial and injurious effect or influence in determining the jury’s verdict, that error is not harmless. And; the petitioner must win.” Wood v. Ercole, 644 F.3d 83, 99 (2d Cir. 2011) (citations omitted) . V. Plea Agreements Plea bargaining, defined
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that statute allowing videotaped testimony of child witnesses at trial violated state constitutional right of confrontation but not sixth amendment right
B. holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error
C. holding that trial counsel was not ineffective when he failed to introduce defendants prior consistent statement statement was not admissible because it was made after defendant had been arrested clearly not a time when the effect of the statement could not have been foreseen
D. holding that petitioners videotaped statement made after he invoked his right to counsel was wrongfully admitted at trial and not harmless error
E. holding that defendants statements not admissible once he had invoked right to counsel without proof of waiver
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.