Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Section 90.403, Florida Statutes (2007), establishes a limitation on the introduction of relevant evidence: “Relevant evidence is inadmissible if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of issues, misleading the jury, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence.” The “neighborhood code of silence” testimony at issue often arises in prosecutions involving crimes occurring in prison or stemming from gang activity, but also in cases where victims or witnesses are generally reluctant to cooperate with law enforcement. It is relevant on the issue of a witness’s credibility and to explain why witnesses may have given conflicting statements concerning a crime. See United States v. Montes-Diaz, 208 F. App’x 565, 566 (9th Cir.2006) ; People v. Trujillo, 2002 WL 31474459
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting gangrelated evidence
B. holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony on inmate code of silence to show witness bias and help explain why the government failed to call certain witnesses
C. holding juvenile court did not abuse its discretion in admitting expert testimony
D. holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion in limiting testimony to only one witness where additional witnesses would have provided the same testimony
E. holding that prosecutor free to comment on defendants failure to call certain witnesses or present certain testimony
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.