With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (2) allowing his co-defendant to present testimony of a witness which identified appellant as the shooter after ruling that the Commonwealth could not present the same evidence (Argument III). Appellant argues that these claims were not previously litigated on direct appeal because, there, he argued that these trial court errors were only examples of how he was prejudiced by a joint trial with co-defendant Bruce Reese, rather than as separate, standalone claims of trial court error. Appellant’s distinction is immaterial for previous litigation purposes. The relevant point is that, on direct appeal, this Court addressed the propriety of those evidentiary rulings in our determination that the trial court did not err in denying appellant’s motion for severance. Lambert, 603 A.2d at 574 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, that discussion was not meré dicta

A: holding that only materials which were included in the pretrial record and that would have been admissible evidence may be considered
B: holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible
C: holding that district court did not abuse its discretion in denying motion for severance where the allegedly prejudicial evidence would have been admissible in separate trials
D: holding admissible certain evidence which would not have been obtained but for violations of constitutional requirements
B.