Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
work is done once they have ruled proffered evidence admissible or inadmissible” instead of assessing whether the expert’s testimony fits the task at hand). 32 . Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharms., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993). 33 . Kelly v. State, 824 S.W.2d 568 (Tex.Crim.App.1992). 34 . Nenno v. State, 970 S.W.2d 549 (Tex.Crim.App.1998). 35 . Cole, supra note 31, at 819-24. 36 . Id. 37 . 928 S.W.2d 550 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) (discussing the importance of assessing the reliability of scientific evidence and how trial judges must act as gatekeepers to weed out "junk” science; concluding that the scientific testimony of a psychologist on the reliability of eyewitness identification is relevant and may be admissible). 38 . 354 S.W.3d 425, 435-36 (Tex.Crim.App.2011) ; see also State v. Esparza, 413 S.W.3d 81, 94
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a specific instruction was unnecessary because eyewitness was crossexamined and the eyewitness testimony was discussed in defense counsels opening statement
B. holding that any deficiency in counsels failure to object to alleged hearsay testimony that repeated statement of witness regarding identity of murder perpetrator did not prejudice defendant and thus was not ineffective assistance when testimony was cumulative of other eyewitness testimony
C. holding admissible expert testimony concerning factors that may impair eyewitness identification and rejecting that concerning a particular eyewitness credibility and the statistical probability of eyewitness misidentification
D. holding that psychologists testimony on the reliability of eyewitness testimony was both relevant and reliable and thus should have been admitted
E. holding the error harmless due to eyewitness corroboration of the victims testimony
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.