Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
defendant’s jury waiver was discussed in open court as required. Most significantly, the transcript of proceedings reveals that there was no discussion of defendant’s waiver of his right to a jury. Instead, the record reveals only that defendant’s trial counsel scheduled a bench trial in September 2004 and the trial court referenced defendant’s signed jury waiver immediately before proceeding to the bench trial. Contrary to the State’s assertions, these two instances are insufficient to constitute a discussion of defendant’s waiver of his right to a jury trial in open court. Furthermore, although defendant signed a jury waiver, the existence of a written jury waiver is not dispositive of the issue of whether that waiver is valid. Bracey, 213 Ill. 2d at 269-70; Scott, 186 Ill. 2d at 284 . In this case, where there was no discussion
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding prelitigation contractual jury waivers unenforceable
B. holding that written jury waivers alone cannot validly waive a defendants right to a jury trial
C. holding that a federal criminal defendant may waive jury trial without advice of counsel
D. recognizing the right to waive a jury trial
E. holding that party did not waive right to trial by jury by requesting directed verdict
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.