With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Testimonial Privilege Underwood argues that, even if the child-abuse exception applies, the district court violated due process when it failed to affirmatively find that Cora knew she had a voluntary right to refuse to testify. Underwood cannot raise this claim. The witness-spouse alone has a privilege to refuse to testify adversely. Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, 53, 100 S.Ct. 906, 63 L.Ed.2d 186 (1980). Therefore, Underwood holds no right to the privilege and thus lacks standing to raise the issue on appeal. See United States v. Anderson, 39 F.3d 331, 350 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (finding defendant-spouse without standing to contest a district court’s decision to compel the spouse to testify) (vacated on other grounds); United States v. Lofton, 957 F.2d 476, 477 n.1 (7th Cir. 1992) (<HOLDING>); Grand Jury Subpoena of Ford v. United States,

A: holding the government waived its argument on appeal that the defendant did not have standing to challenge a search when it failed to raise the argument to the district court
B: holding that a district courts determination as to the applicability of a privilege is reviewed for clear error
C: holding individual standing issue waived
D: holding that lofton would have no standing to appeal the district courts determination that his wife waived her spousal testimonial privilege
D.