A woman was arrested, given Miranda warnings, and questioned about an armed robbery. After she asked to speak with an attorney, the police stopped questioning her about the robbery. Several hours later, the police gave the woman a fresh set of Miranda warnings and began to question her about a different robbery. She did not repeat her request for an attorney and instead made several incriminating statements about the robbery. At the woman's trial for the robbery for which she made incriminating statements, the prosecution seeks to have her statements introduced into evidence.
If the woman's attorney objects on appropriate grounds, the court should:________.
A. Overrule the objection, because the police did not badger the woman into confessing.
B. Overrule the objection, because the woman did not renew her request for an attorney after receiving fresh Miranda warnings.
C. Sustain the objection, because the police did not honor the woman's request.
D. Sustain the objection, because a confession obtained in violation of a defendant's Miranda rights but otherwise voluntary may be used against the defendant.

Based on this scenario it can be said that the court should sustain the objection because the police did not honor the woman's request for an attorney. As part of the Sixth Amendment rights of US citizens, each individual is guaranteed the right of a public trial without unnecessary delay, the right to a lawyer, the right to an impartial jury, and the right to know who your accusers are and the nature of the charges and evidence against you. Therefore, since the police questioned the woman about the robbery improperly, she can have her statements excluded and the court should sustain the objection.