During preliminary proceedings, Mr. Davis' counsel argues that there has been a violation of the Sixth Amendment. According to the defense attorney, Mr. Davis was first implicated in the crime because he was walking in the vicinity of the bank the same day as the robbery and he was driving a car that matched the description of the getaway vehicle. Based on this somewhat tenuous evidence, Mr. Davis was charged with the crime. Mr. Davis was then released on bail and went home. A few days later, while at the grocery store, a bank teller (who was an eyewitness to the crime) saw Mr. Davis and immediately recognized him as the robber. The defense argues that, under the Wade-Gilbert rule, Mr. Davis should have had a lawyer present for any identification procedures because they took place post-indictment. Because there was no counsel present, the defense asks that the eyewitness testimony be excluded. As the judge presiding over the case, do you allow the eyewitness testimony? A. No, you do not allow the eyewitness to testify. Because the identification took place post-indictment, the Wade-Gilbert rule applies. B. Yes, you allow the eyewitness to testify. You believe that, because the identification took place spontaneously and absent formal police procedures, the Wade-Gilbert rule does not apply