that he wishes to remain silent, the interrogation must cease. At this point he has shown that he intends to exercise his Fifth Amendment privilege; any 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 op erates on the individual to overcome free choice in producing a statement after the privilege has been once invoked.” The court elaborated on this principle in Michigan v. Mosely, 423 U.S. 96, 103-104 (1975) as follows: “Through the exercise of his option to terminate questioning he (the suspect) can control the time at which questioning occurs, the subjects discussed, and the duration of the interrogation. The requireme (1989) (<HOLDING>). In Commonwealth v. Peterson, C.C.P. Lehigh,
holding that juveniles request for parent is invocation of fifth amendment rights holding that defendants invocation of miranda rights is inadmissible to prove defendants sanity holding that defendants request to call his mother to get an attorney was an invocation of miranda rights requiring that further questioning must end holding that smith who was 15 years old could waive his miranda rights and his right to have an attorney or parent present during questioning by police holding police violated edwards when they continued questioning a defendant after his initial invocation of the right to counsel even though he responded to the subsequent questioning