been made available or the suspect himself reinitiates conversation.”); Edwards, 451 U.S. at 484-85, 101 S.Ct. 1880 (“We further hold that an accused, such as Edwards, having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel, is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him, unless the accused himself initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.”); Johnson, 348 Md. at 35 t.App.1998) (upholding the trial court’s admission of the confessions appellant gave after he invoked his right to silence because “the right to remain silent can be waived where a defendant voluntarily chooses to reinitiate contact with the police”); Jackson v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 738, 387 S.W.3d 203, 211 (2011) (<HOLDING>). Thus we hold that the police may question a
holding that the trial court is required to provide reasons for its decision prior to appeal holding that a later seventh circuit decision could not have overruled an earlier decision without so much as citing it holding that the court is not bound by the law of the case where an earlier decision of the us armed services board of contract appeals was clearly erroneous holding that because jackson initiated the contact the detective was not required to honor jacksons earlier decision to remain silent holding that an earlier precedential decision is binding precedent on later panels