Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
prosecutor’s failure to strike venire-member 33 for the same reason as Robertson was the result of a mistake in his notes and not evidence of his disparate treatment of Robertson based on race. Here, in response to the challenge by appellant’s trial counsel, the prosecutor represented to the trial court that he exercised a peremptory strike on all venire-members who he had marked in his notes as stating that they could not consider life imprisonment and that he did not strike veniremember 33 because she was not marked in his notes as having given this response. Appellant’s counsel did not cross examine the prosecutor on this statement or request the production of the prosecutor’s notes to assess the truth of the statement. See Pondexter v. State, 942 S.W.2d 577, 582 (Tex.Crim.App.1996) ; Salazar v. State, 795 S.W.2d 187, 193
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that the jurors failure to remember particular facts inquired about on voir dire and the jurors misunderstanding of voir dire questions do not constitute probable prejudice
B. holding that appellant is entitled to prosecutors voir dire notes if they were actually used by prosecutor to refresh his memory
C. holding that an order requiring a prosecutor to disclose his notes from voir dire over a claim of workproduct privilege was immediately appealable under rule 313
D. holding that appellant failed to meet his burden of showing that the trial court violated his right to a public trial by sealing jury questionnaires used in open court during voir dire
E. holding that defendants have a right to be present at voir dire
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.