With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". (citing United States v. de Bright, 742 F.2d 1196, 1198-1200 (9th Cir.1984)); and, thus, that the conspiracies and substantive RICO offenses charged in the indictment have not been proven. This defense may be particularly promising with regard to the RICO charges on which the government will be required to prove both the existence of the Enterprise alleged and its on-going effort to coordinate the activities of the Patriarca Family and the Winter Hill Gang, which Bulger and Flemmi are alleged to have led. Similarly, if Bulger and Flemmi were informants, their codefendants are likely to contend that their statements may not be admitted under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2) because they were not truly coconspirators. See United States v. Eisenberg, 596 F.2d 522, 527 (2d Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, it is foreseeable that if both

A: holding corroboration of named informants statements some of which included suspects hearsay enhanced informants reliability
B: holding that probable cause may be gleaned from the hearsay statements of informants
C: holding that declarations of individuals acting as government informants may not be admitted on the theory that they are agents of defendants
D: holding that the theory of intrauterine forces as a likely causation theory was properly admitted
C.