which mandates that the State demonstrate that an interested adult was present during an interrogation, has been statutorily adopted in ten states. Those statutes render inadmissible any statement made during interrogation by a juvenile outside the presence of an interested adult and prohibit the waiver of the right to counsel by a juvenile unless that waiver is accompanied by a waiver of a parent or 972) (adopting rule that child may not waive right to counsel until child has had opportunity to consult with interested adult); G.J. v. State, 716 N.E.2d that child must be represented by parent, guardian or counsel during interrogation for statement to be admissible; child’s right to counsel cannot be waived by unrepresented child); Eddings v. State, 842 P.2d 759 (Okla.Crim. App.1992) (<HOLDING>); In re L.M., 993 S.W.2d 276 (Tex.App.1999)
holding that statements elicited during custodial interrogation of child are inadmissible unless parents are present holding parents custodial rights are a fundamental interest guaranteed due process protection holding that a statement given after miranda warnings have been administered may be inadmissable when police have elicited a previous unwarned statement during a custodial interrogation holding that voluntary statements to police initiated by witness are not interrogation and therefore are nontestimonial holding that miranda does not apply to statements of the defendant which are voluntary and unsolicited and not the product of custodial interrogation