Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” “Since the [Supreme] Court’s decision in Imbler, courts have taken a functional approach to absolute immunity.” “The analytical key to prosecutorial immunity ... is advocacy-whether the actions in question are those of an advocate.” “If the challenged actions of the prosecutor were not performed in his role as advocate, if they do not relate to an advocate’s preparation for the initiation of a prosecution or for judicial proceedings, then only qualified immunity applies.” But courts will bar § 1983 suits arising out of even unquestionably illegal or improper conduct by the prosecutor so long as the general nature of the action in question is part of the normal duties of a prosecutor. Imbler, 424 U.S. at 413, 430, 96 S.Ct. 984 ; Jones v. Shankland, 800 F.2d 77, 80 (6th
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that while a witness and prosecutor were protected by absolute immunity for their participation in judicial proceedings they were not entitled to absolute immunity on a  1983 claim that they conspired to present false testimony
B. holding that prosecutors enjoy absolute immunity from  1983 suits for initiating a prosecution and presenting the case at trial
C. holding that the prosecutor is prohibited from knowingly presenting or failing to correct false and material evidence against the defendant
D. holding that a prosecutor accused of knowingly presenting false testimony at trial is protected by absolute immunity
E. holding that prosecutor cannot obtain conviction with the aid of false testimony where the prosecutor knows such testimony is false
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.