Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
were controlling the cocaine market and that this shared nationality was relevant to the defendants’ guilt or innocence. Id. at 24. Racially inflammatory appeals by the government are unacceptable and mock any notion of racial fairness, which is “an indispensable ingredient of due process.” Id. at 24-25. The prosecutor who makes such appeals ignores the primary purpose and chief business of his client: to establish justice. Every prosecutor who makes a racial reference or comment, however, is not necessarily distorting the search for truth. Id. at 25. “An unembellished reference to evidence of race simply as a factor bolstering an eyewitness identification of a culprit, for example, poses no threat to purity of the trial. The line of demarcation is crossed, howeve , 542 (1st Cir.1991) . When these factors (frequency and illegal
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that a card identifying the defendant as a native colombian has an inherently prejudicial nature
B. holding that the appropriate sanction was to require the defendant to disclose the nature of the agreement with the witness
C. holding that the state as well as the defendant has a right to rely on compliance with rule 16
D. holding that failure to identify the defendant in the information is an omission of an essential element because the primary purpose of the charging document is to inform the defendant of the nature of the accusations brought against him
E. holding that if an officer possesses an objectively reasonable suspicion that a traffic offense has been committed the officer may request identifying information from the driver
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.