that law enforcement authorities must respect a person’s exercise of that option counteracts the coercive pressures of the custodial setting. We therefore conclude that the admissibility of statements obtained after the person in custody has decided to remain silent depends under Miranda on whether the ‘right to cut off questioning’ was ‘scrupulously honored.’ ” In U.S. v. Tyler, 164 F.3d 150 (3d Cir. 1998), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1077 (1999), the Third Circuit reaffirmed the duty on the part of police to “scrupulously honor” a defendant’s right to remain silent. The court held that, once a defendant declares that he does not wish to make a statement, the police may not initiate or continue any further questioning of defendant. See also, Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 484-85 (1981) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Zook, 520 Pa. 210, 553 A.2d
holding that defendants invocation of miranda rights is inadmissible to prove defendants sanity holding that evidence of a defendants invocation of the right to remain silent ordinarily is not admissible at the defendants criminal trial holding that fifth amendment protection against selfincrimination requires police to notify suspect of right to counsel and to cut off interrogation once suspect invokes the right absent counsel further interrogation may not occur unless suspect initiates subsequent conversation if police initiate subsequent interrogation there can be no valid waiver of counsel even though police advise suspect of his or her constitutional rights and suspect acquiesces in the interrogation holding that restatement of rights and reinititation of interrogation by police do not overcome defendants prior invocation of right to counsel holding that custodial interrogation by police must not occur prior to suspect being informed of his or her right to counsel and against selfincrimination