D was convicted of second degree murder for the death of 17 -year-old son, who died in a fire set in the mobile home. Several days after the fire, D was interrogated by a police officer. The officer initially withheld her Miranda warnings, hoping to get a confession from her first ("question-first interrogation"). Once D had confessed, the officer took a short break from questioning, then read her her Miranda rights and resumed questioning her after she waived those rights. He prompted her to restate the confession that she had made earlier. Based on this second, Mirandized confession, D was convicted. She appealed, charging that the officer's intentional use of an un-Mirandized interrogation to get the initial confession made the later confession, though it occurred after she had waived her Miranda rights, inadmissible. The prosecution cited Oregon v. Elstad to argue that an initial, un-Mirandized confession did not make a defendant incapable of voluntarily waiving her Miranda rights and confessing later. D lost a game of pool and a $30 wager V who refused to pay, and was later found behind the pool club beaten to death with a pool cue. Law enforcement questioned D after finding a bloodstain of one of the pool cues D owned. Before questioning, D waived his rights to remain silent and to counsel both orally and in writing. About an hour and a half into questioning, D said, "Maybe I should talk to a lawyer." The interviewing agents attempted to clarify the statement and reminded D he could remain silent and/or speak to counsel, but Davis said, "No, I don't want a lawyer." Questioning continued for another hour before D said, "I think I want a lawyer before I say anything else." At this point questioning ceased.
At trial, D was convicted on one count of murder. D appealed, arguing that the investigators violated his right to counsel, as laid out in Evans v. Arizona, when they continued questioning after D indicated he "maybe" should talk to a lawyer.
When a suspect makes an ambiguous request for counsel during a custodial interrogation, must the interrogator cease questioning until the suspect is provided with counsel?