With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". by allowing the redacted documents to be admitted into evidence and used by the jury during deliberations rather than confining the reference to them to a stipulation of their existence. In his reply brief, Sussman attempts to bolster his redaction argument with a litany of criminal cases in which the prejudicial evidence introduced was far more damaging than the evidence to which he objects here. See, e.g., Gray v. Maryland, 523 U.S. 185, 197, 118 S.Ct. 1151, 1157,140 L.Ed.2d 294 (1998) (applying the joint trial Bruton prohibition on the introduction of a non-testifying co-defendant’s confession naming the other defendant to redacted confessions in which the defendant’s name is replaced by an obvious indicator of him); United States v. Hardwick, 544 F.3d 565, 573 (3d Cir.2008) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Murray, 103 F.3d 310, 319

A: holding that when the testimony relating each of the statements by codefendants was admissible against at least one of the codefendants the statements were not rendered inadmissible because each statement would be hearsay as to the other two defendants
B: holding that the district court erred in admitting a codefendants redacted proffer statements that clearly identified the only two codefendants charged with murder as the ones who pulled the trigger
C: holding that when all references to the defendant in a codefendants statement are replaced with indefinite pronouns or other general terms the confrontation clause is not violated by the redacted statements admission if when viewed together with other evidence the statement does not create an inevitable association with the defendant and a proper limiting instruction is given
D: holding role enhancement was not clearly erroneous where district court made credibility decision to believe codefendants statements
B.