Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
petition for certiorari and vacate the death penalty in this case. Even if I did not take this view, I would grant the petition because it raises the recurring issue whether evidence of prior unadjudicated criminal conduct may be introduced at the sentencing stage of a capital trial. As I have noted before, see, e. g., Miranda v. California, 486 U. S. 1038 (1988) (Marshall, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari); Williams v. Lynaugh, 484 U. S. 935 (1987) (Marshall, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari), the States’ highest courts have reached varying conclusions on this issue. In addition, the petition poses a second question of profound constitutional significance: whether a defendant’s waiver of his right to a jury in a capital sentencing , 492 N. E. 2d 1303, 1315-1316 (1986) , cert. denied, 479 U. S. 1101 (1987). In 1978,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the death penalty is unconstitutional as applied to juvenile defendants
B. holding that a court need only explain that a unanimous vote is required before a jury can impose the death penalty
C. recognizing that before the case was submitted to the jury the trial court charged the jury that if it were unable to reach a unanimous recommendation the court would impose a sentence of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole
D. holding that where a jury fails to return unanimous answers to some of the questions on a special verdict form the trial judge can enter judgment on the basis of the unanimous verdicts if they are dispositive of the case
E. holding that leaning towards the death penalty is not the same as an automatic vote for the death penalty
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.