conversation of the type generally not subject to Edwards. Mickey argues that the small talk, though casual, does not fall under this general rule. In his view, Landry had reason to know his behavior might elicit an incriminating response because he was “softening up” Mickey by participating in a discussion of the connections between their two families, including Landry’s knowledge of Mickey’s brother’s suicide. But, Landry did not intend and had no reason to know that his statements about his various family members and how they interacted with Mickey’s family were likely to elicit an incriminating response in the context of a conversation ranging from California, philosophy, and politics to family, food, and football. See United States v. Hackley, 636 F.2d 493, 498 (D.C.Cir.1980) (<HOLDING>). Here, the small talk was not interrogational.
holding that a defendants argument that her psr overstated the seriousness of her past conduct was not a sufficiently specific objection to the fact of her previous conviction holding that the plaintiffs evidence of pretext which included but was not limited to her supervisors statement that she had enough of the plaintiff going to her supervisor about her was not sufficient to preclude summary judgment holding that a statement from a conversation about defendants cousin in which police mentioned their inability to reach her after her arrest was not interrogatory holding that threatening employee to mind her own business investigating her videotaping her without her permission and forcing her to take polygraph could not be considered adverse employment actions because they had no effect on conditions of employment holding that it did not violate the defendants right to remain silent when the prosecutor questioned her about inconsistencies between her pretrial statements to authorities and her defense at trial