Read the following excerpt from a US court opinion:
```
effect that defendant’s request to speak with his mother was at least an equivocal invocation of the right to silence because "[a]fter all defendant could not speak to both the officers and his mother at the same time,” post at 579, 34 A.3d at 769, is not persuasive because it proves too much. Using that logic, a request to speak with anyone would amount to an invocation. We decline to adopt so broad a rule. 9 It is for this reason that we reject defendant's argument that the officers were obligated to re-administer his Miranda\ warnings to him after the call to his mother ended and before they continued with their interrogation. Because he had never invoked the right to silence, there was no impediment to the continuation of questioning. Hartley, supra, 103 N.J. at 256, 511 A.2d 80 . Justice ALBIN, dissenting. Defendant
```
What is the most suitable continuation to the opinion? Your options are:
A. holding that because miranda warnings make defendant aware of right to counsel and of consequences of waiving sixth amendment rights defendants waiver of right to counsel after receiving such warnings is valid
B. holding that the initial questioning was merely investigatory and miranda warnings were not necessary until after police found incriminating evidence
C. holding that fresh miranda warnings are necessary after right to silence has been invoked
D. holding that the warnings in their totality satisfied miranda
E. holding that selfinitiated statements volunteered after miranda warnings had been given are admissible
Reply with [A, B, C, D, E] only.