neither equivocally requesting, nor having appointed, nor receiving the services of an attorney invokes the right to counsel for the purposes of a custodial interrogation. It takes an unequivocal invocation of such right. ¶ 145. To reach their desired result, Justices Roggensack and Prosser need not misapply our precedent and that of the United States Supreme Court, as they have done here, because, as we have done in certain unique circumstances, there are established methods through which we may depart from federal constitutional rulings. For example, we may examine a parallel provision of the Wisconsin Constitution to determine whether it provides protections not afforded under the United States Constitution. See e.g., State v. Hansford, 219 Wis. 2d 226, 241-43, 580 N.W.2d 171 (1998) (<HOLDING>) (citing Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78
holding that the mandatory nature of the united states sentencing guidelines resulted in violations of the sixth amendment right to a jury trial and rendering the guidelines advisory holding the sixth amendment right to a jury trial applies to the states through the fourteenth amendment holding that there is no sixth amendment right to jury sentencing holding that article i section 7 required a 12person jury trial despite the united states supreme courts decision that the sixth amendment jury trial right did not recognizing the right to waive a jury trial