Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152, 170, 102 S.Ct. 1584, 71 L.Ed.2d 816 (1982). A fundamental miscarriage of justice is established by showing that the alleged constitutional violation “has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent” of the crime for which he has been convicted. Murray, supra, at 496,106 S.Ct. 2639. Under the circumstances of the instant case, Mercer has demonstrated cause and prejudice such that the court has jurisdiction to entertain his claim for federal habeas relief that the reasonable doubt instruction was unconstitutional. Specifically, cause is established by the novelty of the issue of whether the reasonable doubt instruction given at Mercer’s trial imper-missibly lessened the prosecution’s burden of proof. Reed, supra, at 17-20, 104 S.Ct. 2901 . Further, the previously unrecognized
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding fact that a constitutional claim is so novel that it is not reasonable for counsel to raise it until after the supreme court articulates that such claim is a basis for federal habeas relief constitutes cause for failure to raise that claim in accordance with applicable state procedures
B. holding that a federal court may excuse a state habeas petitioners procedural default if the petitioner can show cause for the failure to raise the claim and prejudice resulting from such failure
C. holding that a plaintiff is not required to state the statutory or constitutional basis for his claim only the facts underlying it
D. holding no ineffective assistance of appellate counsel claim for failure to raise as basis for appeal of conviction ineffective assistance of trial counsel where basis for the latter claim was inadequate
E. holding that failure to raise an issue until it is brought up at oral argument constitutes a waiver
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.