Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
on appeal, and that determination that this Court will consider. 1. There is no direct evidence of pretext. The Ninth Circuit has clarified the type of evidence that will enable a retaliation claim to proceed beyond the summary judgment stage. It held that “[w]hen the plaintiff offers direct evidence of discriminatory motive, a triable issue as to the actual motivation of the employer is created even if the evidence is not substantial.” Godwin v. Hunt Wesson, Inc., 150 F.3d 1217, 1221 (1998). Direct evidence of discriminatory animus has been recognized by several circuits as “evidence which, if believed, proves the fact without inference or presumption.” Davis v. Chevron, 14 F.3d 1082, 1085 (5th Cir.1994); see also Spengler v. Worthington Cylinders, 615 F.3d 481, 491 (6th Cir.2010) ; Godwin, 150 F.3d at 1222 (finding direct
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that direct evidence by definition is evidence that does not require an inferential leap between fact and conclusion
B. holding that the admission of unlawfully seized evidence of a crime was admissible if the jury was instructed that the evidence could be considered only in assessing a defendants credibility and not for determining guilt
C. holding that evidence that would normally be admissible may be excluded if the evidence was a direct or indirect product of an unlawful search
D. holding that a prisoners allegations that a corrections officer retaliated against the prisoner for the prisoners report charging the officer with misconduct properly stated a claim for retaliation noting that aji allegation of retaliation should not be ignored simply because the charge was later dismissed 
E. holding that direct evidence of retaliation is lacking where the evidence if believed  would not require the conclusion that defendant unlawfully retaliated against plaintiff emphasis in original
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.