Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
Olano, 507 U.S. at 732. Appellant contends that “[a] conviction on uncorroborated accomplice testimony is valid only if the jury is instructed that such testimony must be carefully scrutinized, weighted [sic] with great care, and received with great caution.” Aplt. Br. at 25 (citing United States v. Chatman, 994 F.2d 1510, 1514-15 (10th Cir.1993)). We have held that when uncorroborated accomplice testimony is the only evidence supporting conviction that failure “to properly apprise the jury of the potentially unreliable nature of the accomplices’ testimony by means of a special cautionary instruction” is plain and reversible error. United States v. Hill, 627 F.2d 1052, 1055 (10th Cir.1980) (internal quotations omitted); see also United States v. Owens, 460 F.2d 268, 269 (10th Cir.1972) . We note, however, that “[a] defendant is not
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that failure to instruct the jury that accomplice testimony must be carefully scrutinized weighed with great care and received with caution was plain and reversible error
B. holding that the district courts failure to instruct the jury as to the proper standard of proof constituted plain error
C. holding failure to instruct jury on requirement of corroboration of informants testimony is error
D. holding failure to instruct jury as to requirement of corroboration of accomplice witness testimony was error
E. holding that district courts failure to give an addict instruction was not reversible error because the instructions to the jury on accomplice immune informant and felon testimony along with the general credibility instruction were sufficient to alert the jury to consider with special care and weigh with caution the testimony of the witness
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.