With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". conventional wisdom no longer serves. However, when the underlying knowledge of such matters is genuinely unsettled, when the experts themselves are in disarray, we may question whether the decision in a given case informed by the opinions of experts will reflect the truth. Experts can hold justice hostage. [Alan B. Handler, The Judicial Pursuit of Knowledge: Truth And/Or Justice, 41 Rutgers L.Rev. 1, 5, 8, 10-11 (1988) (footnote omitted).] Thus, expert opinion is admissible if the general subject 0-81 (1974) (upholding as admissible state toxicologist’s testimony that quantity and purity of seized heroin, if diluted and packaged, was sufficient to supply 22,400 bags of heroin appropriate for street-level distribution); Benefield v. State, 140 Ga.App. 727, 232 S.E.2d 89, 93-94 (1976) (<HOLDING>); State v. Olsen, 315 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Iowa 1982)

A: holding future dangerousness expert testimony to be admissible
B: holding admissible expert testimony concerning countersurveillance techniques commonly used by narcotics dealers specifically including practice of using vehicle to observe in advance area where distribution was intended to occur
C: holding admissible expertwitness testimony that drug dealers commonly register cars and apartments in names of female friends to conceal narcotics activities
D: holding admissible police officers expert testimony that narcotics dealers often use intermediary in making delivery to buyer under mistaken assumption that intermediary would insulate dealers from criminal liability
D.