Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
The district court denied Wade’s subsequent 28 U.S.C. § 2254 habe-as corpus petition and we affirm. 1. We assume, as does the respondent warden, that the introduction at trial of Wade’s co-defendant’s statements violated the Confrontation Clause. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 52, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) (“Statements taken by police officers in the course of interrogations are ... testimonial under even a narrow standard.”). But, “[hjabeas relief on a trial error claim is appropriate only if the error results in ‘actual prejudice.’ ” Hall v. Haws, 861 F.3d 977, 991 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Davis v. Ayala, — U.S. -, 135 S.Ct. 2187, 2197, 192 L.Ed.2d 323 (2015)); see also Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 684, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) . Wade has not demonstrated that the trial
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that confrontation clause violations are subject to harmless error review
B. holding that a  455b violation is subject to harmless error review
C. holding trial errors are subject to a harmless error analysis
D. holding that a confrontation clause violation constituted harmless error
E. holding that confrontation clause issues are subject to harmless error analysis
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.