Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
we consider five factors: (1) the nature and seriousness of the statement; (2) whether defense counsel invited it; (3) whether the district court sufficiently instructed the jury to disregard it; (4) whether defense counsel had the opportunity to respond to the improper statement; and (5) whether the weight of the evidence was against the defendant. See Rodriguez v. Peters, 63 F.3d 546, 558 (7th Cir.1995); United States v. Johnson-Dix, 54 F.3d 1295, 1304 (7th Cir.1995). First, we consider the prosecution’s comment on the weight of the evidence to be less damaging than other forms of impermissible argument. Typically, in vouching situations, the prosecution has attempted to bolster a witness’s credibility by introducing facts that were not in evidence. See Cheska, 202 F.3d at 950-52 ; Johnson-Dix, 54 F.3d at 1304 (finding
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the prosecutions failure to disclose information regarding a witnesss past cooperation with law enforcement did not constitute a brady violation in light of other impeachment evidence in the record including testimony regarding the witnesss extensive drug use and past cooperation with the dea
B. holding that conviction on appeal is not admissible to impeach witnesss credibility
C. holding that a witnesss testimony or an exhibit may not explicitly and directly contain an opinion as to a trial witnesss credibility
D. holding that a prosecutors comment that a witnesss cooperation had convicted 23 other people impermissibly bolstered witnesss credibility through evidence outside the record
E. holding that a trial witnesss testimony as to the credibility of another witness was prejudicial error
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.