With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the first instance. This case is three years old. The defendants are detained. Lengthy, additional pretrial hearings to resolve serious questions of possible government misconduct are necessary. If the government prevails in those hearings, a prolonged trial will evidently be required. In the circumstances, adversary hearings concerning defendants’ eligibility for appointment of counsel should not be allowed to consume precious time unless they are important to resolving some material issue that is in genuine dispute. This is especially true because it is foreseeable that if defendants are provided use immunity for their statements, additional hearings may be required in the future to determine whether the government can prove that its evidence is untainted. See Borujf, 870 F.2d at 319 (<HOLDING>). In addition, adverting unnecessary adversary

A: holding the government has an affirmative duty to disclose exculpatory evidence to a criminal defendant
B: holding police officers warrantless placement of gps on defendants vehicle in 2009 fell within the goodfaith exception to exclusionary rule because such conduct was objectively reasonable under united states v knotts 460 us 276 103 sct 1081 75 led2d 55 1983
C: holding that under simmons the government has an affirmative duty to prove that the evidence it proposes to use is derived from a legitimate source wholly independent of the compelled testimony quoting kastigar v united states 406 us 441 460 92 sct 1653 1665 32 led2d 212 1972
D: holding that if the harm alleged in fact affects the recreational or even the mere aesthetic interests of the plaintiff that will suffice for standing purposes citing sierra club v morton 405 us 727 73436 92 sct 1361 31 led2d 636 1972
C.