With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". in custody requests the presence of a lawyer before further interrogation.”). In this case, the interrogation video reveals Detectives Neal and Richardson did precisely what the law forbids. After Thomas requested counsel, the detectives not only continued discussing Thomas’s case, but they also pressed on her the possible “benefits of cooperation” as well the penalties of disobedience. See Gomez, 927 F.2d at 1539. In doing so, Detectives Neal and Richardson unmistakably violated Edwards’s “rigid prophylactic rule.” See Towne v. Dugger, 899 F.2d 1104, 1106 (11th Cir.1990), abrogated on other grounds by Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994); see also Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, 92-96, 105 S.Ct. 490, 491-93, 83 L.Ed.2d 488 (1984) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). The Government claims Thomas’s statements

A: holding that any time is insufficient to warn accused of right to counsel during questioning
B: holding police violated edwards when they continued questioning a defendant after his initial invocation of the right to counsel even though he responded to the subsequent questioning
C: holding that a defendant need not be advised of the right to terminate questioning at any time
D: holding that a suspects invocation of the right to remain silent must be unequivocal to require that police questioning cease
B.