Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
why it answered the special verdict form in the way that it did. The difficulty in granting judgment as a matter of law is in determining whether the jury was engaged in “honestly and in good faith exonerating the servant and capriciously rendering a verdict against the master, or honestly and in good faith finding the servant guilty of [discrimination], but [] capriciously exonerating] him because of the financial ability of the employer to better pay the judgment.” Eckleberry v. Kaiser Found. N. Hosps., 226 Or. 616, 359 P.2d 1090, 1095 (1961). See also Freeman v. Chicago Park Dist., 189 F.3d 613, 615 (7th Cir.1999) (“There is no priority of one answer over another when the verdicts are inconsistent.”); Danner v. International Med. Mkt’g, Inc., 944 F.2d 791, 794 (10th Cir.1991) . We will not intrude on the province of the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the trial judge rather than the jury makes the determination of whether the defendant violated the implied consent law
B. holding new trial should not have been granted because jury was properly instructed
C. holding that where appellant moved to recuse trial judge from deciding the motion for new trial the judge of the administrative district was required to designate a judge to hear the recusal motion
D. holding that trial judge should have granted new trial rather than judgment notwithstanding the verdict because the judge could not know in what order the jury reached its inconsistent verdicts
E. holding that where the meaning of the jurys verdict was not clear in light of the trial courts jury instructions the court of appeals erred in directing entry of judgment for respondent the case should have been remanded to the trial judge who was in the best position to pass upon the question of a new trial in light of the evidence his charge to the jury and the jurys verdict
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.