could not be supported by the objective evidence in the record. In contrast with the trial court’s recitation, the panel, adopting the State’s description in part, found that the DVDs “show a calm interrogation during which the detectives spoke to defendant in ‘measured tones and treated him courteously.’ ... There is no evidence that defendant was excessively tired, sleep deprived, or physically abused.” Further, the Appellate Division concluded that the trial court erred in analyzing defendant’s initial request to speak with his mother “in isolation from the mosaic of the prior relationship between the detectives and defendant and [apart] from [defendant’s] other statements and conduct.” The panel reasoned that 7); State v. Brooks, 309 N.J.Super. 43, 57, 706 A.2d 757 (App.Div.) (<HOLDING>), certif. denied, 156 N.J. 386, 718 A.2d 1215
holding that when a defendant initiates contact with the police after an assertion of a sixth amendment right to counsel defendant waives that right and his or her statements are admissible holding that oral and written confessions obtained after defendant asked to speak with his mother were admissible because defendant displayed continuous willingness to cooperate with police holding that defendants request to speak to his parents was not an invocation of the right to remain silent because defendant never gave the police any indication that he wanted to stop talking only indicating he wanted to take a break from the interrogation to speak with his parents holding that in view of armed robbery defendants mental retardation poor reading comprehension and no prior experience with the criminal process confessions obtained after defendants orally waived right to counsel and signed written waiver forms were inadmissable holding that where officers approached a suspicious person in an airport terminal and with credentials displayed asked if they could speak with him the individual consented the officers told him that he was suspected of carrying contraband and he consequently allowed them to search his person the encounter did not implicate the fourth amendment