Opinion ID: 7089211
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Stewart's Conversation with Tench

Text: {¶ 81} On arriving at the station, without being questioned, Tench talked to Stewart about his job with Old Carolina Barbecue, mentioning that he was now with the Akron restaurant rather than the Strongsville one. After reminding Tench of the Miranda warnings given earlier, Stewart asked Tench if he could ask a question. Tench agreed that he could. Stewart asked Tench if his mother had had any problems with any male friends or others who might have caused her harm. Tench said he was not aware of anybody. {¶ 82} Tench argues that when he said to the detectives, I think I want an attorney, he made an unequivocal request for an attorney and that thereafter, the police should have stopped all questioning. If Tench's statement I think I want an attorney is regarded as an unambiguous invocation of the right to counsel, Tench argues, then Stewart violated that right by asking Tench to identify anyone who might have harmed his mother.  {¶ 83} The trial court determined that Tench's statement was not a clear invocation of his right to counsel. We note that several courts have characterized less definite statements as unequivocal requests for counsel, even when prefaced by I think. See, e.g., Alford v. State , 699 N.E.2d 247 , 250 (Ind.1998) (I think it would be in my best interest to talk to an attorney was understood by police to be a request for counsel); State v. Munson , 594 N.W.2d 128 , 139-140 (Minn.1999) (I think I'd rather talk to a lawyer was clearly treated by police officers as a request for counsel). Schmitt and Weinhardt also construed Tench's statement as a request for counsel and terminated direct questioning of Tench at that point. See Munson , 594 N.W.2d at 139 ; compare Clark v. Murphy , 331 F.3d 1062 , 1069-1071 (9th Cir.2003) (state court's conclusion that I think I would like to talk to a lawyer was ambiguous was neither contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, clearly established law), overruled in part on other grounds , Lockyer v. Andrade , 538 U.S. 63 , 123 S.Ct. 1166 , 155 L.Ed.2d 144 (2003) ; Diaz v. Senkowski , 76 F.3d 61 , 63-65 (2d Cir.1996) (I think I want a lawyer followed by Do you think I need a lawyer? was ambiguous);  Ex parte Cothren , 705 So.2d 861 , 866-867 (Ala.1997) (I think I want to talk to an attorney before I answer that was not absolute). {¶ 84} However, Tench's response to Stewart's question was not introduced against him at trial. And Tench does not argue that his later statements to Weinhardt should have been suppressed as fruits of an Edwards violation by Stewart. 3 Thus, we need not determine whether Stewart committed an Edwards violation.