With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Plaintiffs perjury trial, did not go so far as to find that Plaintiffs arrest or prosecution lacked probable cause; rather, it found that the evidence put forth by the prosecution was “legally insufficient to establish [Plaintiffs] guilt of perjury in the first degree beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (citing Hadid, 121 A.D.3d at 813, 993 N.Y.S.2d 754). Such a finding, in Defendants’ view, is insufficient to rebut the presumption of probable cause raised by Plaintiffs perjury indictment. Id. Furthermore, Defendants claim that Plaintiffs conviction in New York State Supreme Court does not undermine probable cause, but instead provides an alternative basis for the presumption of probable cause. Id. at 11 (citing Mitchell v. Victoria Home, 434 F.Supp.2d 219, 228 (S.D.N.Y.2006) (McMahon, J.) (<HOLDING>) and Soto v. City of New York, 132 F.Supp.3d

A: holding that a conviction even when later reversed creates a rebuttable presumption of probable cause
B: holding that guidelines create a rebuttable presumption
C: holding that a showing of past persecution creates a rebuttable presumption of future persecution
D: holding that child support formula creates a rebuttable presumption and an inequitable result rebuts the presumption
A.