Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
held that a Batson objection is waived if not made during the voir dire process, and some have specified that the objection must be made before the venire is excused. See Morning v. Zapata Protein (USA), Inc., 128 F.3d 213, 215-16 (4th Cir.1997) (upholding the trial court’s dismissal of appellant’s Batson challenge because appellant raised the challenge after the venire was excused); U.S. v. Maseratti, 1 F.3d 330, 335 (5th Cir.1993) (“To be timely, the Batson objection must be made before the venire is dismissed and before the trial commences”); U.S. v. Parham, 16 F.3d 844, 847 (8th Cir.1994) (“[A] Batson objection must be made at the latest before the venire is dismissed and before the trial commences”); Government of Virgin Islands v. Forte, 806 F.2d 73, 75-76 (3d Cir.1986) ; see also Dias v. Sky Chefs, Inc., 948 F.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the jurors failure to remember particular facts inquired about on voir dire and the jurors misunderstanding of voir dire questions do not constitute probable prejudice
B. holding that defendant waived his objection to the prosecutors use of her peremptory challenges by failing to make a contemporaneous objection during jury selection
C. holding that the defendant must renew a motion for a change of venue after voir dire to preserve the issue for appeal
D. holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire
E. holding that because the defendant failed to make any objection at the close of voir dire he waived his batson claim
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.