to further police-initiated custodial interrogation even if he has been advised of his rights.’” State v. Kell, 303 Or 89, 96, 734 P2d 334 (1987) (quoting Edwards v. Arizona, 451 US 477, 484, 101 S Ct 1880, 68 L Ed 2d 378 (1981)). When a defendant invokes the right to counsel, police must cease all interrogation until an attorney is provided, unless the defendant “initiates further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police.” Id. To “initiate [] further communication, exchanges, or conversations with the police,” a defendant must ask a question that “represent[s] a desire on the part of an accused to open up a more generalized discussion relating directly or indirectly to the investigation.” Oregon v. Bradshaw, 462 US 1039, 1045, 103 S Ct 2830, 77 L Ed 2d 405 (1983) (<HOLDING>). However, certain questions do not reinitiate
holding that it was not a violation of caldwell for the prosecutor to note a number of things have to happen before a death sentence is sought holding that communication was initiated by the question well what is going to happen to me now holding that defendants statement to analysts those countries all continue to do well for us was puffing in part because he omitted any mention of why how under what standard or compared to what those markets were doing well emphasis added recognizing that what is now  893804 is the codification of holytz holding that what is important is not simply that the element at issue is defined in terms of what it does but that the term as the name for a structure has a reasonably well understood meaning in the art