Q: In this task, you will be shown a prompt from a judicial decision and multiple holding statements derived from citations following text in a legal decision. Holdings represent the governing legal rule when the law is applied to a particular set of facts. There are five answer choices for each citing text. The correct answer is the holding statement that corresponds to the citing text. The four incorrect answers are other holding statements. You should find the correct option. There is a <HOLDING> token in the position of the citing text prompt where the holding statement was extracted.
during custodial interrogation, the accused "is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police." Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484-85, 101 S.Ct. at 1885. Thus, the police " 'may not reinterrogate an accused in custody if he has clearly asserted [this] right to counsel.' " Arizona v. Roberson, 486 U.S. 675, 680, 108 S.Ct. 2093, 2097, 100 L.Ed.2d 704 (1988) (emphasis added) (quoting Edwards, 451 U.S. at 485,101 S.Ct. at 1885). However, nothing e of counsel during custodial interrogation on a limited basis that still permits some police questioning. See Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523, 525-26, 107 S.Ct. 828, 830, 93 L.Ed.2d 920 (1987) (<HOLDING>). Further, a suspect may also validly choose to
Holding statements: (A) holding that a suspect may invoke his miranda right to counsel only with respect to written statements while still permitting verbal statements without qualification (B) holding that the interrogation must cease once the suspect invokes his miranda right to counsel (C) holding that statements elicited from a defendant in violation of his miranda rights could be introduced to impeach that defendants credibility when the jury was instructed that the statements were not to be considered as evidence of his guilt (D) holding that once a suspect has invoked his right to counsel police may still legitimately inquire whether the suspect has changed his mind about speaking to them without an attorney (E) holding that statements given after miranda warnings are admissible even when the arrest that preceded the statements was constitutionally deficient
A:
(A)