Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
in Keen, the process of weighing aggravating' and mitigating factors as was erroneously done in Mills’ case, and by the trial judge in Keen, simply does not apply in cases where the jury recommends life. See id. We further explained: Moreover, so there is no doubt as to the proper focus of a life recommendation analysis, reversal under Tedder is in no way prevented even assuming the presence of several valid aggravators. Indeed, that has been the rule rather than the exception. See Johnson v. Dugger, 911 F.2d 440, 474 n. 78 (11th Cir.1990) (listing 47 cases reversed by this Court under Tedder between 1975 and 1989 where between one to five valid aggravating factors existed or were assumed to exist), vacated on other grounds, 920 F.2d 721 (11th Cir.1990); Fuente, 549 So.2d at 658-59 . Keen, 775 So.2d at 287 n. 24. Clearly, the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. recognizing propriety of jury override reversal in brookings v state 495 so2d 135 143 fla1986 despite presence of four valid aggravators
B. holding that retrial did not violate the double jeopardy clause where reversal based on trial error distinguishing reversal for insufficient evidence
C. holding jury trial waiver valid despite defendants argument that district court failed to clearly distinguish between jury trial bench trial and the use of stipulated facts
D. holding the presence of counsel for a witness did not violate grand jury secrecy
E. holding that reversal for a new trial was required where jury instruction relating to fraud was incorrect
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.