With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". was left with two options that would serve his stated goals: (1) plead guilty in Spokane County and then face trial in Pierce County or (2) delay pleading guilty in Spokane County until the Pierce County trial was concluded. Both options entailed risks. The risks of the first option — the one Yates pursued — are quite apparent. By pleading guilty to 13 counts of murder in Spokane County before facing trial in Pierce County, Yates made it easier for the State to demonstrate the existence of a common scheme or plan and the evidence of his Spokane County murders was admissible during the penalty phase. This risk was mitigated, to some degree, by the possibility of arguing in Pierce County that equitable estoppel precluded the State from seeking the death penalty, see 14 VRP at 627-788 (<HOLDING>). The first option also provided a key benefit

A: holding an evidentiary hearing on the applicability of equitable estoppel
B: recognizing cause of action for equitable estoppel under erisa
C: recognizing the abuse of discretion standard and the requirement of evidentiary support for a finding of estoppel
D: holding that an evidentiary hearing should have been held where the creditors rationale for a late filing hinged on the question of fraud and estoppel
A.