“clarifying questions” are not required when dealing with an ambiguous statement regarding an attorney because, under the Davis rationale, the right to counsel has not been invoked. Davis, supra. In Davis, the Supreme Court concluded that the statement “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer” was not a clear and unambiguous request for an attorney. Thus, the interrogating officers were not required to terminate the questioning. Id., 512 U.S. at 462-464, 114 S.Ct. at 2357, 129 L.Ed.2d at 373-374. Moreover, the Supreme Court of Ohio recently concluded that the statement “I think I need a lawyer because if I tell everything I know, how do I know I’m not going to wind up with a complicity charge?” was similarly ambiguous, relying heavily on Davis. Henness, 79 Ohio St.3d at 63, 679 N.E.2d at 696 (<HOLDING>). Turning to the present case, appellant
holding do you think i need a lawyer to be ambiguous holding that anonymous statement was admissible as a statement by a partys agent under rule 801d2d and noting that a district court should be presented with sufficient evidence to conclude that the person who is alleged to have made the damaging statement is in fact a party or an agent of that party holding that appellants statement i think i need a lawyer     is just as ambiguous as the statement made by the defendant in davis holding that statement i think i should call my lawyer was an unequivocal request for counsel holding that a hearsay statement can itself be considered in first determining if a conspiracy existed when the statement was made