Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
need for reliability in the determination that death is the appropriate punishment. See id. at 584, 108 S.Ct. at 1986. The Court remarked that to allow the jury to consider evidence that was materially inaccurate was error. See id. at 590,108 S.Ct. at 1989. The present case does not parallel the situation addressed in Johnson nor the vast majority of cases that have relied upon Johnson to determine whether evidence of a criminal conviction or conduct may be properly admitted at sentencing. Instead of a materially inaccurate criminal conviction, we confront purportedly materially inaccurate testimony. Notwithstanding the difference, Hernandez must still establish that Grigson’s and Erdmann’s testimonies were false and material. See Fuller v. Johnson, 114 F.3d 491, 497 (5th Cir.1997) . Although neither the Supreme Court nor this
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the petitioners federal habeas action accrued when a witness executed an affidavit recanting the testimony he gave during a prisoners murder prosecution not on the date that the state supreme court rejected the prisoners claim
B. holding that in a prisoners eighth amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical need expert testimony is necessary when the seriousness of injury or illness would not be apparent to a lay person
C. holding that habeas prisoners eighth amendment claim failed because he had not adequately shown that erdmanns testimony was false or material
D. holding that a prison official can violate a prisoners eighth amendment rights by failing to intervene
E. holding that because pretrial detainees fourteenth amendment rights are comparable to prisoners eighth amendment rights the same standards apply
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.