Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): right to stop answering questions at any point after questioning has begun.” United States v. Ellis, 125 Fed.Appx. 691, 699 (6th Cir.2004); United States v. Gaines, 105 Fed.Appx. 682, 694 (6th Cir.2004), vacated and remanded on other grounds Gaines v. United States, 543 U.S. 1114, 125 S.Ct. 1090, 160 L.Ed.2d 1059 (2005) (finding that a defendant’s oral Miranda waiver and voluntary statements to police were admissible, even if the defendant was not advised of his right to terminate questioning) (citing United States v. Davis, 459 F.2d 167, 168-69 (6th Cir.1972)); United States v. Ricks, 989 F.2d 501 (6th Cir.1993) (rejecting the argument that a Miranda warning must “include the right to stop answering questions at any time”); United States v. Davis, 459 F.2d 167, 168-69 (6th Cir.1972) (<HOLDING>). As to Detective Alexander’s alleged haste, 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that defendant must assert right of confrontation and right to be present at time of alleged violation and cannot claim those rights for first time on appeal (B) holding that a defendant need not be advised of the right to terminate questioning at any time (C) holding police violated edwards when they continued questioning a defendant after his initial invocation of the right to counsel even though he responded to the subsequent questioning (D) holding that any time is insufficient to warn accused of right to counsel during questioning (E) holding that right to effective assistance of counsel requires that defendant be advised of immigration consequences of plea
Output (English): holding police violated edwards when they continued questioning a defendant after his initial invocation of the right to counsel even though he responded to the subsequent questioning