86 S.Ct. 1602. Once these warnings are administered, [i]f the individual indicates at any time prior to or during questioning, that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease.... [A]ny statement taken after the person invokes his privilege cannot be other than the product of compulsion, subtle or otherwise. Without the right to cut off questioning, the setting of in-custody interrogation operates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked. Id. at 473-74, 86 S.Ct. 1602. If an accused wishes to invoke his right to remain silent, he must do so unambiguously. See Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 458-59, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994); United States v. Hurst, 228 F.3d 751, 759-60 (6th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). The trial court conducted an evi-dentiary
holding that the admissibility of statements obtained after the person in custody has decided to remain silent depends under miranda on whether his right to cut off questioning was scrupulously honored  and upholding officers attempts to resume questioning after defendant invoked right to remain silent because defendant was readvised of his rights sufficient time elapsed between the original invocation and the requestioning and the questioning involved a different crime 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 a suspects invocation of the right to remain silent must be unequivocal to require that police questioning cease holding that evidence of a defendants invocation of the right to remain silent ordinarily is not admissible at the defendants criminal trial holding that during police interrogation right to remain silent must be invoked unambiguously