With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in the parties’ briefs, as well as in the submissions from amici curiae, see ante at 49, the sufficiency of the Plunkett affidavit once the evidence unlawfully obtained on September 20 and 21 is excised has not been “squarely presented” by the parties. III. The District Court, having determined that Awadallah’s arrest was invalid (on several alternative theories) in Awadallah III and Awadallah TV, held that his allegedly perjurious testimony before the grand jury must be suppressed as the “fruit” of that unlawful arrest and detention. United States v. Awadallah, 202 F.Supp.2d 55, 79-82 (S.D.N.Y.2002) (‘Awadallah III”) (rejecting the government’s “independent source” and “inevitable discovery” arguments); United States v. Awadallah, 202 F.Supp.2d 82, 100 (S.D.N.Y.2002) ("Awadallah IV”) (<HOLDING>). The majority holds that the District Court

A: holding that a defendants false grand jury testimony was insufficient to establish perjury where the defendant was called before the grand jury for the mere purpose of laying the foundation for a perjury prosecution such testimony was immaterial to the grand jurys purpose
B: holding that the physical fruits of a miranda violation must be suppressed
C: holding that right was available in grand jury proceedings
D: holding that awadallahs grand jury testimony which occurred after twenty days of continuous wrongful detention must be suppressed
D.