After being formally charged with robbery, Daniel is appointed a public defender during his initial court appearance. The next day, without contacting his appointed lawyer, police officers invite Daniel to help them "clarify some details" about the case. During this conversation, Daniel makes several incriminating statements. At his trial, Daniel's lawyer objects to the use of these statements, citing a violation of his Sixth Amendment rights. Based on the ruling in Montejo v. Louisiana, how should the court consider the admissibility of Daniel's statements made to the police? Group of answer choices The statements should be excluded from trial because Daniel was not given a chance to request his lawyer's presence The statements can be admitted at trial if it is determined that Daniel voluntarily waived his right to counsel after receiving Miranda warnings and understanding them The statements are inadmissible because police initiated the conversation without the explicit consent of Daniel's appointed counsel The court must exclude all statements made by Daniel because the police failed to reappoint a lawyer for this specific interrogation