With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". the poisonous tree. At the hearing in this matter, AUSA Norm Cairns acknowledged that the Tenth Circuit’s case law examining this question does not resolve the instant inquiry. See 2/3/11 Tr. of Proceedings at 70 (“[W]e hope to get some clarification from this Court, potentially from the Tenth Circuit, one way or the other.... [This] was something of a test case[J”). The Court has therefore looked beyond Tenth Circuit authority to out-of-circuit case law, as well as a district court opinion from elsewhere in this Circuit, for guidance. Whereas the Tenth Circuit has expressly held that identity evidence may be suppressed as fruit of the poisonous tree, other circuit courts have held precisely the opposite. See, e.g., United States v. Farias-Gonzalez, 556 F.3d 1181, 1182 (11th Cir.2009) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Garcia-Beltran, 443 F.3d

A: holding that malicious prosecution claim accrues when underlying prosecution is terminated
B: holding that the due process clause is violated if the prosecution fails to disclose material evidence that is favorable to a criminal defendant
C: holding that identityrelated evidence is not suppressible when offered in a criminal prosecution only to prove who the defendant is
D: holding probation revocation is not a stage of a criminal prosecution
C.