Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
(1966) (reversing conviction where bailiff said of defendant to juror “[o]h, that wicked fellow, he is guilty.”). The question that we must initially address, however, is whether the court erred in finding that the Roberts Affidavit was obtained in violation of Local Rule 5.01(d). This is a factual finding that we reverse only if clearly erroneous. See United States v. Floyd, 281 F.3d 1346, 1348 (11th Cir.2002). Having considered the bri t contact with jurors, the district court’s use of these powers is informed by interests important to the integrity of the judicial process. One such interest is the court’s strong 'interest in protecting jurors from threats and needless harassment from unsuccessful parties. McDonald v. Pless, 238 U.S. 264, 267, 35 S.Ct. 783, 784, 59 L.Ed. 1300 (1915) . Indeed, this circuit’s pattern instruction
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the trial court was without authority to set aside entry of default on motion to set aside default judgment
B. recognizing that a trial court can set aside verdict
C. holding that the trial courts denial of a motion to set aside the verdict for insufficient evidence is reviewable only for abuse of discretion
D. recognizing that jurors have the right to reject that part of the evidence believed by them to be untrue and to accept that found by them to be true
E. recognizing that jurors should be protected from being harassed and beset by the defeated party in an effort to secure from them evidence of facts which might establish misconduct sufficient to set aside a verdict
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.