Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
whether Essie can make a pri-ma facie case of discrimination. The burden would then shift to Goodman to demonstrate a “neutral explanation” for employing two of his three allocated peremptory challenges to exclude members of the black race. We agree with Essie that her decedent, Jones, would have been entitled to the benefit of Edmonson. Because the rule enunciated in that case involves the extension of a federal right, we believe its fruits are mandated by the Supreme Court’s decision in James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U.S. -, 111 S.Ct. 2439, 115 L.Ed.2d 481 (1991). The question of re-troactivity of Supreme Court decisions wherein a new rule is announced has had a somewhat varied past. Cf., e.g. Teague v. Lane, 489 U.S. 288, 109 S.Ct. 1060, 103 L.Ed.2d 334 (1989) ; Griffith v. Kentucky, 479 U.S. 314, 107 S.Ct.
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding no retroactive application
B. holding mcnally not to be retroactive in habeas corpus proceeding reversed on appeal
C. holding the rule of griffith v kentucky 479 us 314 107 sct 708 93 led2d 649 1987 does not require retroactive application to convictions challenged on habeas corpus
D. holding retroactive application
E. holding on the basis of melendezdiaz v massachusetts  us  129 sct 2527 174 led2d 314 2009 that a certificate of norecord is testimonial
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.