and the interrogating agent recognizes that the statement is susceptible to that construction, questioning should cease and the police should inquire of the suspect about the correct interpretation of the statement. Bey II, supra, 112 N.J. at 136, 548 A.2d 887; Wright, supra, 97 N.J. at 120, 477 A.2d 1265. Given the narrow balance for the Davis majority’s analysis, we believe it prudent to continue to apply our precedent. We thus agree with the trial court that defendant’s request that his mother contact his attorney was an equivocal invocation of the right to counsel that had to be clarified before questioning could take place. Later administration of Miranda warnings did not serve to clarify the earlier equivocal assertion of counsel. Wright, supra, 97 N.J. at 122, 477 A.2d 1265 (<HOLDING>). The second question is whether defendant
holding that although defendants voluntarily given initial statement was inadmissible because of miranda violation subsequent statement made after careful miranda warnings were given and waiver was obtained was admissible holding that selfinitiated statements volunteered after miranda warnings had been given are admissible holding that because miranda warnings make defendant aware of right to counsel and of consequences of waiving sixth amendment rights defendants waiver of right to counsel after receiving such warnings is valid holding that miranda warnings do not have to be given in the exact form stated in the miranda opinion as long as an effective equivalent is given holding inadmissible confes sion given after request for counsel despite new miranda warnings