With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Court authority on the question of expert witnesses, the petitioner refers to Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993); Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999). The petitioner’s citation to Daubert and Kumho Tire is unavailing, since both of those cases interpret the requirements of Federal Rule of Evidence 702, which did not govern the trial in this case. Nor do those cases establish any federal constitutional precedent. However, the petitioner’s right to present a defense is a clearly established constitutional right. See Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986) (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485, 104 S.Ct. 2528, 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984)) (<HOLDING>). The question, then, is whether that right was

A: holding that the constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense 
B: holding that the sixth amendment right to present a meaningful defense does not entitle a defendant to present evidence on a question of law
C: recognizing a criminal defendants right to present a complete defense
D: recognizing fundamental fairness requires criminal defendants be granted a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense
A.