Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
petitioner seeks, but instead the purposes for which the writ of habeas corpus is made available.” Mack-ey, 401 U.S. at 682, 91 S.Ct. at 1175. To focus unduly on the Bailey decision without giving fill attention to the purposes of collateral review is to lose the forest in all the trees. After Teague, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit has not addressed whether changes in substantive statutory law should be applied retroactively. A close reading of Teague and an examination of its reasoning demonstrate that Teague should have a broader, more expansive application than it is usually afforded. Teague greatly restricted the availability of collateral relief, and it is applicable even in death penalty cases. Penry v. Lynaugh 492 U.S. 302, 109 S.Ct. 2934, 106 L.Ed.2d 256 (1989) ; see also Sawyer v. Smith, 497 U.S. 227, 228,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the right to crossexamine adverse witnesses applies to capital sentencing hearings
B. holding that the right applies at capital sentencing in particular
C. holding teague applies to capital cases
D. recognizing the common practice of substituting specialized capital counsel for habeas petitions filed by capital defendants
E. holding that even capital prisoners have no constitutional right to counsel in habeas cases
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.