robbery and brandishing a firearm during the armed robbery of a hair salon on May 11, 2010. To prove those offenses, the Government presented, inter alia, the following evidence: (1) Levatte and Harris testified Thomas participated ejudicial when the only evidence linking the defendant to the crime, other than his statements, was a single fingerprint that could have been left at any time, and neither the eyewitness nor the four codefendants testified). In light of the overwhelming direct and circumstantial evidence of her guilt, Thomas’s improperly admitted statement did not have a prejudicial effect on the other evidence presented at trial. 2. Effect on defense counsel Thomas’s statements from the holding cell also did not affect defense counsel in any discernible way. Defense 1999) (<HOLDING>); McFadden v. Garraghty, 820 F.2d 654, 660-61
holding one day was enough time for the coercive effect of an edwards violation to dissipate particularly when in the interim the accused appeared before a magistrate judge received fresh miranda warnings and received appointed counsel citing gomez 927 f2d at 153839 holding that waiver by attorney was binding upon the accused when before the state introduced the evidence complained of on appeal counsel for the state in the presence of the accused and his counsel stated the agreement and the evidence of the witness was then read to the jury in the presence of the accused and his counsel without objection holding that in determining whether there exists a valid waiver of the right to counsel in the criminal setting the court may consider a defendants lack of good faith in working with appointed counsel including an unreasonable refusal to cooperate with counsel or an unreasonable request for substitution of appointed counsel and the timeliness of defendants request for new counsel particularly when a defendant makes an untimely request for new counsel  under circumstances which are likely to result in a continuance holding that the defendants prior conviction was not obtained in violation of his right to counsel because he had the opportunity for appointed counsel at public expense holding that the fact that the members of the grievance committee and the disciplinary counsel are appointed by the supreme court is not enough by itself to establish a per se violation of due process