Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
will be deemed acquiescence in the setting of that date.” Vermillion v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1201, 1204 (Ind.1999), reh’g denied. Where a defendant “seeks or acquiesces in any delay which results in a later trial date, the time limitations of the rule are also extended by the length of those delays.” Wooley v. State, 716 N.E.2d 919, 924 (Ind.1999), reh’g denied. We first address Hill’s argument regarding the seven-day delay between March 12, 2001 and March 19, 2001. The trial court offered the State its choice between the two dates, and the State chose March 19, 2001 as the trial date. However, Hill failed to object to the later trial setting. Thus, Hill acquiesced to the later trial date and waived his right to raise this issue on appeal. See, e.g., Vermillion, 719 N.E.2d at 1202-1205 . We now address Hill’s argument regarding the
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the defendant waived the issue on appeal when he failed to contemporaneously object to the admission of such evidence at trial
B. holding that when determining whether a delay in prosecution violates a defendants right to a speedy trial courts must consider the length of the delay the reason for the delay whether the defendant asserted his rights and the resulting prejudice to the defendant
C. holding that the defendant acquiesced to the rescheduling of the trial and thus waived the right to object to the sevenday delay
D. holding the defendant did not demonstrate a denial of his sixth amendment right to a speedy trial where even though the delay was substantial and the defendant was detained pretrial for three years the fault for the delay was shared and the defendant continued to request continuances following his assertion for the right to a speedy trial
E. holding plaintiffs waived their right to appellate review of the admission of an experts testimony by failing to object to it at trial
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.