Id. The Supreme Court recognized the importance of a suspect’s “real understanding” of his rights and his intelligent decision whether to exercise them. Id. at 469. {¶ 23} If custodial interrogation continues in the absence of an attorney after a police officer advises a suspect of his rights, the government bears “a heavy burden” to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the suspect “knowingly and intelligently waived his privilege against self-incrimination and his right to retained or appointed counsel” before speaking to the police. Miranda at 475, citing Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 490, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964), fn. 14; Connelly, 479 U.S. at 169, 107 S.Ct. 515, 93 L.Ed.2d 473. See also State v. Treesh, 90 Ohio St.3d 460, 470, 739 N.E.2d 749 (2001) (<HOLDING>). A court may not presume a valid waiver either
holding that district courts findings were not clearly erroneous where there was  sufficient evidence  that the defendants waiver of his rights was knowing and intelligent recognizing requirement of knowing intelligent waiver holding that the constitutional right to a sixmember jury may be waived by a knowing and intelligent waiver holding that a defendants waiver of the right to testify must be knowing informed and intelligent holding a waiver of a substantial constitutional right must be a voluntary knowing and intelligent act