the evidence appellant claims should have been excluded, regardless of whether the court erred in admitting it. See Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 40-41, 109 S.Ct. 285, 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988). 8 . Appellant’s Br. at 26 (citing Ward’s testimony that he had not been drinking beer before the police met him, which appellant considers dubious, and his acknowledgment that his backpack and radio were well-worn even before appellant destroyed them). 9 . See, e.g., Turner v. United States, 116 A.3d 894, 927 (D.C.2015) ("[A] credibility determination, made after the judge had the opportunity to hear the ... witnesses’ live testimony and observe their demeanor, may be overturned only if 'it is wholly unsupported by the evidence.'"). 10 . 384 U.S. 436, 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966) (<HOLDING>). 11 . Appellee’s Br. at 11 n.7 (citing Lewis
holding that a defendant who is subject to custodial interrogation must be advised in clear and unequivocal language of his constitutional right to remain silent and his right to a lawyer holding that during police interrogation right to remain silent must be invoked unambiguously holding that custodial interrogation by police must not occur prior to suspect being informed of his or her right to counsel and against selfincrimination holding that prior to engaging in custodial interrogation police must warn a suspect that he has a right to remain silent that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him and that he has a right to the presence of an attorney either retained or appointed 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