With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to the primary avenue permitting habeas corpus review upon a demonstration of “cause and prejudice.” See Sawyer, 505 U.S. at 338-39, 112 S.Ct. at 2518. Significantly, the availability of federal habeas corpus review upon cause and prejudice was developed as a core safeguard against the miscarriage of justice in its broader sense. See Dretke, 541 U.S. at 394, 124 S.Ct. at 1852; see also Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 495-96, 106 S.Ct. 2639, 2649, 91 L.Ed.2d 397 (1986). Further, claims of constitutionally deficient stewardship such as those presented here, see, e.g., supra note 7, are cognizable under the cause and prejudice standard. See Dretke, 541 U.S. at 394, 124 S.Ct. at 1852. See generally Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 697, 104 S.Ct. 2052, 2070, 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984) (<HOLDING>). It is apparent from the above that, under

A: holding that misleading testimony regarding the purpose of a proceeding did not warrant inquiry into the result of the proceeding
B: holding that fundamental fairness is flexible and calls for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands
C: holding that the burden is on the defendant when the validity of the warrant is challenged
D: recognizing that an ineffectiveness claim however as our articulation of the standards that govern decision of such claims makes clear is an attack on the fundamental fairness of the proceeding whose result is challenged
D.