With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". decision does not specifically require a defendant to file verified affidavits or sworn testimony to satisfy Ms burden of makmg a preliminary substantial showing that the affiant recklessly or mtentionally made false statements in the warrant affidavit. The UMted States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Cirernt has not specifically addressed the issue of whether the defendant must file verified support for Ms allegations of falsity to mandate an evidentiary hearing under Franks. However, several other eir-cMts of the UMted States Court of Appeals have held that the defendant’s motion and allegations must be supported with affidavits or other sworn testimony in order to meet the “offer of proof’ requirement of Franks. The First CircMt has held that it is not error for a di (7th Cir.1983) (<HOLDING>). In regard to the sufficiency of the

A: holding that a party seeking to establish particular claims as invalid must overcome the presumption of validity in 35 usc  282 by clear and convincing evidence
B: recognizing presumption and finding that it was overcome
C: holding evidence insufficient to overcome presumption of correctness
D: holding that the defendant must do more than produce a selfserving statement which refutes the warrant affidavit to overcome the warrants presumption of validity
D.