Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
primarily on an assessment of credibility. Purkett, 514 U.S. at -, 115 S.Ct. at 1772, 131 L.Ed.2d at 840. The explanations given were race-neutral. The decisive question is whether counsel’s race-neutral explanation will be believed by the trial court. Hernandez, 500 U.S. at 364, 111 S.Ct. at 1869, 114 L.Ed.2d at 409; State v. Wilhite, 858 S.W.2d 293, 296 (Mo.App.1993). The trial court accepted the explanations. We have examined the explanations and the circumstances which appear in the record. It is clear from the findings that the trial court viewed the plausibility of the state’s explanations in light of the totality of the facts and circumstances of the ease, as Parker requires. Parker, 836 S.W.2d at 934, 939. See also Purkett, 514 U.S. at -, 115 S.Ct. at 1771, 131 L.Ed.2d at 839 . The trial court took a permissible view of
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the absence of legitimate income supports the finding of probable cause in a forfeiture action
B. holding that the record supports the trial judges implicit finding of nonpretextuality
C. holding that a courts determination to discount the testimony of the defendants expert witnesses was a proper exercise of his discretion in weighing the demeanor credibility and persuasiveness of the evidence when ruling on a motion for a new trial
D. holding that the persuasiveness of the justification becomes relevant in the third batson step where a trial judge may find lack of persuasiveness supports a finding of pretext
E. recognizing that the dc circuit has stated that by attempting to evaluate the credibility of opposing experts and the persuasiveness of  competing studies the district court conflates the questions of the admissibility of expert testimony and the weight appropriately to be accorded such testimony by a factfinder 
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.