Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
appearing before the grand jury. United States v. Paige, 241 Fed.Appx. 620, 622 (11th Cir. 2007) (concluding that the district court did not err in refusing to suppress defendant’s grand jury testimony where defendant “was not read his Miranda rights before he testified”); United States v. Myers, 123 F.3d 350, 361 (6th Cir.1997) (“The few circuits that have addressed this issue have likewise been hesitant to require as a matter of constitutional law Miranda-like warnings to suspects appearing before the grand jury.”); United States v. Gillespie, 974 F.2d 796, 804 (7th Cir.1992) (“Courts confronting this issue have uniformly suggested that any Mir randa-type warnings that may be applicable in the grand jury context are minimal at best.”); Labbe v. Berman, 621 F.2d 26, 29 (1st Cir.1980) . Here, the prosecutor warned Defendant that:
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing commonlaw privilege against selfincrimination
B. holding that miranda warnings were not required for suspect testifying at inquest when suspects lawyer had previously advised him of his privilege against selfincrimination
C. holding that a witness may invoke the privilege against selfincrimination at trial despite testifying previously before a grand jury in the same case
D. holding that waiver of privilege against selfincrimination is proceeding specific
E. recognizing a public safety exception to the requirement that miranda warnings be given in order to use a suspects statement as evidence against him at trial
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.