(1972)). This interpretation achieves the underlying purposes of the Sixth Amendment: That interpretation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel is consistent not only with the literal language of the Amendment, which requires the existence of both a “criminal [prosecution)” and an “accused,” but also with the purposes which we have recognized that the right to counsel serves.... The "core purpose” of the counsel guarantee is to assure aid at trial, "when the accused [is] confronted with both the intricacies of the law and the advocacy of the public prosecutor.” United States v. Ash, 413 U.S. 300, 309 [9 , that “the majority of state supreme courts to consider the issue [of whether Davis is limited to the post-waiver scenario] have reached 792, at *4-5 (Ohio Ct.App. Feb. 27, 2006) (<HOLDING>); but see United States v. Alamilla-Hernandez,
recognizing that a defendant may not insist on representation by an attorney he cannot afford holding that defendants response i cant  i cant afford it when informed that an attorney would be provided for him if he could not afford one did not without further explanation amount to a clear unambiguous or unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel holding that a suspect must be warned prior to any questioning that he has the right to remain silent that anything he says can be used against him in a court of law that he has the right to the presence of an attorney and that if he cannot afford an attorney one will be appointed for him prior to any questioning if he so desires holding in light of davis that defendants statement i cant afford a lawyer but is there anyway i can get one lacked the clear implication of a present desire to consult with counsel and was ambiguous at best holding that defendants response after being told that the state would provide him an attorney if he wanted one of yeah im  im ah need that cause i cant afford none did not reflect a present desire for counsel at all much less an unequivocal one