With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". assertion that this evidence was rendered cumulative by counsel’s stipulation that Vonneida had produced child pornography ten years earlier in connection with the conduct underlying his unchallenged conviction for production of child pornography under Count One of the indictment. At least in some circumstances, the prosecution cannot be compelled to stipulate away its evidence. “Indeed, the Supreme Court has noted specifically that the government generally has a right to present evidence, rather than accept a stipulation, to establish the ‘human significance’ of the fact and ‘to implicate the law’s moral underpinnings.’” United States v. Polouizzi, 564 F.3d 142, 153 (2d Cir.2009) (quoting Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 187-88, 117 S.Ct. 644, 136 L.Ed.2d 574 (1997)) (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Chevere, 368 F.3d

A: holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting gangrelated evidence
B: holding admission of videos containing child pornography was probative of intent to sexually assault a child
C: holding district court did not abuse its discretion in admitting images and videos of child pornography because the stipulation was not an adequate substitute for the evidence offered
D: holding trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting highly probative and relevant evidence of other crimes
C.