Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
406 (1994). “To satisfy the prejudice inquiry, the evidence suppressed must have been material to guilt or punishment.” Gibson, 951 A.2d at 1126-1127 (Pa.2008). As noted by Appellant, materiality extends to evidence affecting the credibility of witnesses, rather than merely to purely exculpatory evidence. See Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 154, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972) (“When the ‘reliability of a given witness may well be determinative of guilt or innocence,’ nondisclosure of evidence affecting credibility falls within this general rule.”). Moreover, we have held that the protection of Brady extends to the defendant’s ability to investigate alternate defense theories and to formulate trial strategy. See Commonwealth v. Green, 536 Pa. 599, 640 A.2d 1242, 1245 (1994) . “[F]avorable evidence is material, and
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the failure to disclose evidence known to the defense cannot form the basis of a brady violation
B. holding that defendants failure to assert the defense in any pretrial motions did not waive defendants limitations defense because the assertion of a limitations defense in the answer preserved defendants right to raise the defense both during the first trial and before the second
C. holding that the trial court did not err in its refusal to consider the borrowers defense of merger on appeal since the defense was outside the subject matter jurisdiction of the trial court
D. holding that the trial court did not err in refusing to consider debtors claim of rescission as an equitable defense to the foreclosure action where that defense was not raised before the clerk
E. holding that courts must consider any adverse effect that the prosecutors failure to disclose might have had on not only the presentation of the defense at trial but the preparation of the defense as well
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.