Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
was no manifest necessity to declare the mistrial, and no express or implied consent to the mistrial by the defendant, we perceive no exception to the Double Jeopardy Clause’s requirement that an individual may not be subjected “to hazards of trial and possible conviction more than once for an alleged offense.” Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 187, 78 S.Ct. 221, 223, 2 L.Ed.2d 199 (1957). We have considered all arguments presented by the parties and conclude that no further discussion is necessary. The judgment of the district court will be affirmed. 1 . New Jersey relies on "manifest necessity” because the phrase "ends of public justice” is not applicable to the facts of this case. See Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U.S. 458, 468-471, 93 S.Ct. 1066, 1072-1074, 35 L.Ed.2d 425 (1973) . 2 . The district court, without discussion,
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding claim of alleged brady violation waived on collateral appeal for failure to raise it at trial or on direct appeal
B. holding that ineffective assistance of counsel claims should be brought in collateral proceedings not on direct appeal
C. holding that even when the issue is constitutional in nature an argument is not preserved on appeal unless the appellant raised and made the argument at trial and obtained a ruling on it nor will a particular theory be addressed on appeal if it was not presented below
D. holding that the ends of public justice justify a mistrial where the trial contains a defect such that a conviction if obtained could be upset at will on appeal or in collateral proceedings
E. holding that direct appeal from subsequent conviction is the proper context in which to seek review of trial courts ruling declaring mistrial over defendants objection at previous trial
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.