With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". integrity of the prosecution, “charg[ing it] with ‘reprehensible’ conduct in purportedly attempting to cast a false light on [the defendant’s] activities.” 470 U.S. at 4, 105 S.Ct. at 1041, 84 L.Ed.2d at 6. The Court held that defense counsel’s conduct was sufficient to invoke the “invited response” doctrine because “[d]efense counsel ... must not be permitted to make unfounded and inflammatory attacks on the opposing advocate.” Young, 470 U.S. at 9, 105 S.Ct. at 1043, 84 L.Ed.2d at 8; see also United States v. Robinson, 485 U.S. 25, 33 n. 5, 108 S.Ct. 864, 869 n. 5, 99 L.Ed.2d 23, 32 n. 5 (1988) (opining that, under Young, a prosecutor’s reference to a criminal defendant’s failure to testify may be contextually proper); United States v. Nickens, 955 F.2d 112, 121-22 (1 st Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). This Court has not yet had the opportunity to

A: holding that defense counsels argument that the prosecution was trying to railroad his client was sufficient to invoke the invited response doctrine
B: holding improper counsels argument that plaintiff was entitled to something for manner in which defense was conducted
C: holding prosecutors argument that defense counsels goal was to keep evidence from the jury was improper
D: holding that defense counsel had invited prosecutors comments on parole law
A.