Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
James’s wife, Kellie James, about a statement from his former wife, Glenda Kyser: “Isn’t it true ma’am that Glenda Kyser told you, warned you when you got together with Mr. James that you better watch out for any kids that you have because of sexual abuse?” ROA, Vol. I at 26 (quoting transcript from second trial). Ms. James denied having that conversation with Ms. Kyser. Id. Mr. James argued in his petition that because “Ms. Kyser was not at trial for [him] to confront or cross-examine in open court,” the prosecutor’s question violated his Confrontation Clause rights. Id. The district court determined the prosecutor’s question was not testimonial and therefore did not implicate the Confrontation Clause. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 51, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) . The district court concluded appellate
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that testimonial statements are subject to the requirements of the confrontation clause even if they are otherwise admissible under the hearsay exception for excited utterances
B. holding of crawford applies only to testimonial hearsay
C. holding that any confrontation right is found in the fourteenth amendments due process clause not the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment
D. holding that the confrontation clause applies only to trials and not to sentencing hearings
E. holding the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial statements
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.