With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". same conclusion.” Id. at 1079 n. 6. In addition, although “a number of decisions have applied the Davis rule in a pre-waiver or initial waiver context ... only one published opinion, from any jurisdiction, [has done] so after expressly considering the initial waiver/post-waiver distinction.” Id. (citing In re Christopher K., 299 Ill.Dec. 213, 841 N.E.2d at 964-65). 10 . Thus, attempts by officers to clarify an ambiguous request for counsel in the pre-waiver context do not, as the Court of Criminal Appeals implied, g 478-79 (Md.Ct.Spec.App.2000) (determining that defendant's statement, while being read his Miranda rights, that "I want a lawyer but I can't afford a lawyer” was not an unequivocal request for counsel); People v. Granderson, 212 Mich. App. 673, 538 N.W.2d 471, 473 (1995) (<HOLDING>); State v. Linnik, No. CA2004-06-015, 2006 WL

A: holding that defendants response after being told that the state would provide him an attorney if he wanted one of yeah im  im ah need that cause i cant afford none did not reflect a present desire for counsel at all much less an unequivocal one
B: holding that defendants response i cant  i cant afford it when informed that an attorney would be provided for him if he could not afford one did not without further explanation amount to a clear unambiguous or unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel
C: holding in light of davis that defendants statement i cant afford a lawyer but is there anyway i can get one lacked the clear implication of a present desire to consult with counsel and was ambiguous at best
D: holding that a suspect must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law that he has the right to the presence of an attorney and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires
A.