What follows is an opinion from a United States Court of Appeals.
Intervenors who participated as parties at the courts of appeals should be counted as either appellants or respondents when it can be determined whose position they supported. For example, if there were two plaintiffs who lost in district court, appealed, and were joined by four intervenors who also asked the court of appeals to reverse the district court, the number of appellants should be coded as six.
In some cases there is some confusion over who should be listed as the appellant and who as the respondent. This confusion is primarily the result of the presence of multiple docket numbers consolidated into a single appeal that is disposed of by a single opinion. Most frequently, this occurs when there are cross appeals and/or when one litigant sued (or was sued by) multiple litigants that were originally filed in district court as separate actions. The coding rule followed in such cases should be to go strictly by the designation provided in the title of the case. The first person listed in the title as the appellant should be coded as the appellant even if they subsequently appeared in a second docket number as the respondent and regardless of who was characterized as the appellant in the opinion.
To clarify the coding conventions, consider the following hypothetical case in which the US Justice Department sues a labor union to strike down a racially discriminatory seniority system and the corporation (siding with the position of its union) simultaneously sues the government to get an injunction to block enforcement of the relevant civil rights law. From a district court decision that consolidated the two suits and declared the seniority system illegal but refused to impose financial penalties on the union, the corporation appeals and the government and union file cross appeals from the decision in the suit brought by the government. Assume the case was listed in the Federal Reporter as follows:
United States of America,
Plaintiff, Appellant
v
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendant, Appellee.
International Brotherhood of Widget Workers,AFL-CIO
Defendants, Cross-appellants
v
United States of America.
Widgets, Inc. & Susan Kuersten Sheehan, President & Chairman
of the Board
Plaintiff, Appellants,
v
United States of America,
Defendant, Appellee.
This case should be coded as follows:Appellant = United States, Respondents = International Brotherhood of Widget Workers Widgets, Inc., Total number of appellants = 1, Number of appellants that fall into the category "the federal government, its agencies, and officials" = 1, Total number of respondents = 3, Number of respondents that fall into the category "private business and its executives" = 2, Number of respondents that fall into the category "groups and associations" = 1.
Note that if an individual is listed by name, but their appearance in the case is as a government official, then they should be counted as a government rather than as a private person. For example, in the case "Billy Jones & Alfredo Ruiz v Joe Smith" where Smith is a state prisoner who brought a civil rights suit against two of the wardens in the prison (Jones & Ruiz), the following values should be coded: number of appellants that fall into the category "natural persons" =0 and number that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials" =2. A similar logic should be applied to businesses and associations. Officers of a company or association whose role in the case is as a representative of their company or association should be coded as being a business or association rather than as a natural person. However, employees of a business or a government who are suing their employer should be coded as natural persons. Likewise, employees who are charged with criminal conduct for action that was contrary to the company policies should be considered natural persons.
If the title of a case listed a corporation by name and then listed the names of two individuals that the opinion indicated were top officers of the same corporation as the appellants, then the number of appellants should be coded as three and all three were coded as a business (with the identical detailed code). Similar logic should be applied when government officials or officers of an association were listed by name.
Your specific task is to determine the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials". If the total number cannot be determined (e.g., if the respondent is listed as "Smith, et. al." and the opinion does not specify who is included in the "et.al."), then answer 99.

Opinion:
Michael Eugene CANNADY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Richard L. DUGGER, Secretary, Department of Corrections; Attorney General, State of Florida, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 89-3812.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
May 16, 1991.
Donald Scott Modesitt, Tallahassee, Fla., for petitioner-appellant.
Cynthia A. Shaw and Edward C. Hill, Asst. Attys. Gen., Tallahassee, Fla., for respondents-appellees.
Before TJOFLAT, Chief Judge, DUBINA, Circuit Judge, and HENDERSON, Senior Circuit Judge.
DUBINA, Circuit Judge:
The appellant, Michael Eugene Cannady (“Cannady”), is currently serving a life sentence with a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment of 25 years. Cannady was convicted of first degree murder, robbery, and kidnapping in the Circuit Court for Bay County, Florida. He appeals the district court’s judgment denying his petition for writ of habeas corpus in which he raised four grounds for relief: (1) judicial misconduct; (2) prosecutorial misconduct; (8) ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) illegally obtained confession. For the reasons which follow, we reverse the district court and remand for a grant of the writ.
I. BACKGROUND
Cannady was convicted of the first degree murder of William Carrier, the night auditor at the Ramada Inn in Panama City, Florida (“the victim”). The only substantial evidence against Cannady regarding the murder consisted of incriminating statements he made to Officer Frank McKeithen (“McKeithen”), an investigator with the Bay County Sheriff’s office. Can-nady told McKeithen that he stole some money from the Ramada Inn, kidnapped the victim, drove him to a secluded wooded area and shot him. The jury reached a guilty verdict but recommended a life sentence.
Judge Russell Bower adjudged Cannady guilty of murder in the first degree; however, Judge Bower rejected the jury’s recommendation and sentenced Cannady to death. Cannady filed a timely notice of appeal to the Florida Supreme Court, which affirmed Cannady’s conviction but reduced his court-imposed death penalty sentence to life imprisonment with a mandatory minimum term of incarceration of 25 years. Subsequently, Cannady filed a Rule 3.850 motion in the Circuit Court for Bay County addressing four main issues: (1) judicial misconduct; (2) prosecutorial misconduct; (3) ineffective assistance of counsel; and (4) illegally obtained confession. Judge Bower denied the Rule 3.850 motion, and Cannady appealed to the District Court of Appeal, First District of Florida, which affirmed per curiam. Cannady then filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida. The United States Magistrate Judge entered a Report and Recommendation recommending that all relief be denied. Cannady filed a timely objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation which was overruled by the district court. The district court entered judgment in favor of the respondents and against Cannady. It is from that judgment that Cannady appeals.
II. DISCUSSION
The first issue we consider on appeal is whether Cannady’s confession that he killed the victim was illegally obtained. Cannady argues that the confession should not have been admitted into evidence because it was not freely and voluntarily given, and he did not knowingly waive his right to have an attorney present when he made incriminating statements to McKeithen. This court, however, in deciding the ultimate issue of voluntariness of a defendant’s confession, may substitute its independent judgment after a review of the entire record. Sullivan v. Alabama, 666 F.2d 478 (11th Cir.1982).
Cannady became a suspect in the murder while he was incarcerated on other charges. McKeithen read Cannady his Miranda rights and questioned him several times about the murder. At one of the initial interviews, Cannady presented an alibi defense. McKeithen investigated the alibi and discovered its inaccuracy. Then McKeithen confronted Cannady that he had been seen in Panama City on the night before the murder. McKeithen asked Can-nady if he killed the victim, and Cannady, at some point during the interview said, “I think I should call my lawyer.” Continuing the questioning, McKeithen asked Cannady if he wanted “to talk about it,” whereupon Cannady broke down and admitted the killing. After this outburst, McKeithen interrogated Cannady in detail about the murder. Cannady then read and signed a written waiver of rights form and gave a transcribed confession.
There is conflicting testimony in the record by McKeithen as to whether the voluntary admission was made before or after Cannady requested counsel. McKeithen testified at his deposition and at trial that Cannady first stated, “I think I should call my lawyer,” and then he broke down and stated, “I didn’t mean to kill that man ... it wasn’t supposed to happened that way.” At the suppression hearing, McKeithen testified that Cannady first stated, “I didn’t mean to kill that man ... it wasn’t supposed to happen that way,” and then stated he needed to speak to his attorney. Whether the spontaneous statements were made before or after Cannady requested an attorney is immaterial since the statements were not made in response to interrogation. See Miranda, 384 U.S. at 467-479, 86 S.Ct. at 1624-1630.
Cannady’s outburst in which he stated that “he didn’t mean to kill that man” is not due to be suppressed. Voluntary and spontaneous comments by an accused, even after Miranda rights are asserted, are admissible evidence if the comments were not made in response to government questioning. See Lightbourne v. Dugger, 829 F.2d 1012, 1019 (11th Cir.1987), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 934, 109 S.Ct. 329, 102 L.Ed.2d 346 (1988); United States v. Suggs, 755 F.2d 1538, 1542 (11th Cir.1985). Cannady’s initial statement was not the product of interrogation. It was spontaneously and voluntarily made by Canna-dy during questioning by McKeithen as to his whereabouts on the night of the murder. At oral argument before this court, Cannady’s counsel alluded to the fact that these statements were voluntarily made.
The statements which followed Cannady’s request for counsel are a different matter. We conclude that all subsequent statements should have been suppressed because they were obtained in violation of Cannady’s fifth amendment right. In Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981), the Supreme Court held that the use of the petitioner’s confession against him at trial violated his right under the fifth and fourteenth amendments to have counsel present during custodial interrogation when the petitioner had previously requested an attorney. When an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation, a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to police-initiated interrogation after being again advised of his rights. Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484-87, 101 S.Ct. at 1884-86. According to Edwards, once an accused requests an attorney, all questioning and interrogation must cease until the attorney is present.
If the request for counsel is equivocal (for example, a request to have both counsel and talk), further inquiries by the police must be limited to clarifying the initial request for counsel. No statement made after the request and before it is clarified may overcome the Miranda bar. Thomas v. Wainwright, 601 F.2d 768, 771 (5th Cir.1979). See also United States v. Pena, 897 F.2d 1075 (11th Cir.1990). Cannady’s statement, “I think I should call my lawyer,” was an unequivocal request for counsel. McKeithen knew Cannady wanted to speak to an attorney because McKeithen pushed the phone toward Cannady and waited for him to make the call. When Cannady did not call an attorney, McKeithen then asked, “would you like to talk about it?” This statement is not a clarifying one. It is a question directly about the murder and any answer elicited from Cannady after this statement is a violation of Cannady’s constitutional rights. See Owens v. Alabama, 849 F.2d 536, 539 (11th Cir.1988). In Owens, this court held that continued questions about a murder violated Miranda rights when the accused had stated that he thought he would let the state appoint him counsel. Here, McKeithen’s question to Cannady was obviously whether Cannady wanted to talk about the crime, not whether Cannady wanted an attorney. McKeithen knew that Cannady wanted an attorney, and he should have procured an attorney for him.
Because we hold that Cannady’s petition for writ of habeas corpus is due to be granted on the basis that his confession was illegally obtained, we need not address the remaining issues presented in this appeal.
In conclusion, we reverse the district court’s denial of Cannady’s petition for writ of habeas corpus and remand this case to the district court with directions to grant the writ and afford the state an opportunity to retry Cannady.
REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH DIRECTIONS.
. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966).
. At oral argument, Modesitt, counsel for Can-nady, stated: “Well, he [Cannady] said, ‘It wasn't supposed to happen that way ... I didn't mean to kill that man.’ Now, I don’t think this is a confession ... I think it's an incriminating statement, but I’d rather go back to trial with that one than the next two that occurred after that.” Cannady’s counsel at oral argument also stated: "If the Court finds that it was a voluntary statement when the defendant said, ‘I think I ought to talk to a lawyer’ and then he volunteers and says, ‘Well, I didn’t mean to kill that man ... it wasn’t supposed to happen that way.’ If the court finds that to be voluntary and admissible, I may agree that might be appropriate. But the following statements after that were the product of interrogation by the officer; they were [there was] no effort to clarify whether he wanted an attorney or not and there was no need for clarification.... ”

Question: What is the total number of respondents in the case that fall into the category "state governments, their agencies, and officials"? Answer with a number.

Choices:

Answer: 1