Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
prior perjury conviction and her acknowledgment of guilt for that offense “ ‘did not influence the [fact finder], or had but slight effect.’ ” Clay, 262 Va. at 260, 546 S.E.2d at 731 (quoting Kotteakos, 328 U.S. at 764, 66 S.Ct. at 1248, 90 L.Ed. at 1566). Because I believe our prior holdings in Cole and Craddock compel the conclusion that the trial court’s error was not harmless, I would reverse the conviction and remand for a new trial. Thus, I respectfully dissent. 5 . Even if Pierce had later opted to testify, our case law would support the conclusion that this decision would not render harmless the court’s knowingly erroneous admission of impeachment evidence in the Commonwealth’s case-in-chief. Cf. Purvis v. Commonwealth, 31 Va.App. 298, 309-10, 522 S.E.2d 898, 903 (2000) . 6 . The majority asserts "LeBray testified
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding exclusion was harmless error
B. holding that in order to conclude that federal constitutional error is harmless court must find that error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
C. recognizing that where the error involved defies analysis by harmless error standards or the data is insufficient to conduct a meaningful harmless error analysis then the error will not be proven harmless beyond a reasonable doubt
D. holding that any error was harmless and thus not plain error
E. holding erroneous refusal to sever offenses in bench trial is not harmless error where only fact that would render refusal harmless is defendants decision to testify and clear evidence establishes that the trial court  used the harmless error doctrine  prospectively  as a basis to disregard an established rule of law  quoting hackney v commonwealth 28 vaapp 288 296 504 se2d 385 389 1998 en banc
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.