Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
placing other pedicle screws in those same patients, such information would demonstrate “knowledge” of how to do the surgery, but a lack of competence or care in the performance of the surgery. Plaintiffs’ desire to introduce such other acts evidence ran more to showing lack of competence or care — that is, malpractice— with respect to other patients. From such evidence, the jury then could infer that Dr. Callahan had a propensity to commit malpractice by misplacing pedicle screws and thus may or perhaps must have committed similar malpractice in the surgery to Mr. Bair. However, Rule 404(b) bars the use of evidence of other alleged wrongs to show, circumstantially, action in conformity therewith. Thus, the legitimate probative value of the p App. 626, 607 N.W.2d 100, 105-06 (1999) ; Jones v. Tranisi, 212 Neb. 843, 326 N.W.2d
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that it is within the discretion of the trial judge to sustain the states objection where questions to a witness go to his understanding of the law concerning parole and call for the legal knowledge of a lay witness
B. holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness
C. holding that mistrial was warranted for trial court allowing questions concerning prior malpractice lawsuits against witness because evidence of prior malpractice actions against a witness is not relevant to the witness competency or knowledge
D. holding that trial court properly barred certain questions about witness who was in federal witness protection program
E. holding that the trial courts admonition of a witness even though detailed and strongly stated did not coerce the witness because the court did not threaten or badger the witness and the court provided the witness with her own counsel to ensure that the decision was voluntary
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.