Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
4 . This part of Rule 705 has been read to allow expert witnesses, in both direct and cross-examination, to describe events, conversations, and the contents of written reports that were otherwise inadmissible, for example, as hearsay. In such cases, the testimony is admitted not as substantive evidence but "for the limited and independent purpose of enabling the jury to scrutinize the expert’s reasoning.” United States v. Wright, 251 U.S.App.D.C. 276, 285, 783 F.2d 1091, 1100 (1986); see abo United States v. 01 (stating that expert’s recounting of statements by codefendants did not violate confrontation clause because statements were not introduced for truth of matter asserted and declarant testified at trial); cf. Bryan v. John Bean Div. of FMC Corp., 566 F.2d 541, 545 (5th Cir.1978) . 5 . Whether the trial court may order
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that evidence of customer inquiries is admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule
B. holding that otherwise hearsay evidence disclosing the basis of an expert witness opinion should be admissible if  the impeaching evidence has sufficient guarantee of reliability that the prophylactic effect of the hearsay rule is not necessary to ensure trustworthiness
C. holding that a violation of the hearsay rule was harmless
D. holding that private safety codes are admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule on the basis of trustworthiness and necessity
E. holding that the district court did not err in relying on hearsay evidence where the government offered reasons why its hearsay evidence had indicia of reliability and the court considered the reliability of the evidence in deciding the weight to give the hearsay evidence
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.