Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
most likely would have found no structural error. 4 . Of course, in an absence of counsel case, to determine that structural error has occurred it may be necessary for a court to find facts related to whether counsel was absent and whether inculpatory evidence was presented during the absence. But once a court answers “yes" to these preliminary questions, no case-by-case determination is permitted. 5 . I agree with the majority that the presence of lawyers for co-defendantS' — even when a co-defendant’s lawyer agrees to cover for an absent defense lawyer — is irrelevant to the structural error inquiry unless the defendant knowingly and voluntarily waives the right to the presence of his own lawyer. See Maj. Op. at 1158-59; Olden v. United States, 224 F.3d 561, 568-69 (6th Cir. 2000) ; United States v. Russell, 205 F.3d 768,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that defendant was denied counsel even though his lawyer asked another defendants lawyer to take notes or whatever in the defendants lawyers temporary absence
B. holding that a request for a lawyer requires the police to cease questioning until the accused consults with his or her lawyer unless the defendant initiates further conversation
C. recognizing that providing defendant with hobsons choice between incompetent lawyer or no lawyer violates right to counsel
D. holding that there is an inference from the existence of a blank for the name of defendants lawyer and from the absence of any evidence to the contrary that defendant was not represented by counsel
E. holding that even where a client was more sophisticated in business matters than the lawyer himself the lawyer should have assumed the client was relying on the lawyer for the legal aspects of the loan from the client to the lawyer to the same extent that the client would rely on the lawyer for advice were the client making the loan to a third person
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.