Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): for the Florida Supreme Court to review the imposition of the death sentence with “rationality and consistency,” Proffitt, supra, 428 U.S. at 259, 96 S.Ct. at 2969, defendants and their counsel must be aware of all the material under consideration by the court. Not only is the defendant’s right to counsel implicated, Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738, 742, 87 S.Ct. 1396, 1399, 18 L.Ed.2d 493 (1967), but so is the right of confrontation. Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965); Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 85 S.Ct. 1074, 13 L.Ed.2d 934 (1965). The receipt of psychiatric and psychological reports from the Department of Corrections also implicates a defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights. Estelle v. Smith, 451 U.S. 454, 101 S.Ct. 1866, 68 L.Ed.2d 359 (1981) (<HOLDING>). By considering nonrecord information without 
 Holding statements: (A) recognizing that davis was concerned only with the right to counsel and not the right to remain silent (B) recognizing fifth amendment right to be informed of right to remain silent to have questions cease and to consult with an attorney before being subjected to psychiatric examination that may be used against defendant in capital sentencing proceedings (C) holding that a suspects invocation of the right to remain silent must be unequivocal to require that police questioning cease (D) holding that prior to engaging in custodial interrogation police must warn a suspect that he has a right to remain silent that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney either retained or appointed (E) holding that a defendant who is subject to custodial interrogation must be advised in clear and unequivocal language of his constitutional right to remain silent and his right to a lawyer
Output (English): holding that a suspects invocation of the right to remain silent must be unequivocal to require that police questioning cease