State v. Andrew M. Edler

¶ 58. {concurring in part, dissenting in part). I concur because I *29agree with the majority's adoption of Maryland v. Shatzer, 559 U.S. 98 (2010). See majority op., ¶ 31. I dissent and write separately to discuss the majority opinion's lack of regard for the fundamental question presented in this case: what is the legal standard to be applied when a suspect makes a statement about counsel post-custody, pre-Miranda warnings, pre-interrogation, and pre-waiver of Miranda rights. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). In my view, we accepted certification to answer this question. Instead, the…