testimony at trial regarding statements Buckingham made to police because: (1) his statements were not recorded as required by Scales; (2) the police knew he was represented by counsel, but nonetheless interrogated him in violation of the Sixth Amendment; (3) his statements were involuntary due to the absence of counsel; (4) investigators violated Buckingham’s Miranda rights by continuing to interrogate him after he invoked his right to counsel. The postcon-viction court held that “[Buckingham]’s argument[s] relating to his custodial interview are procedurally barred.” We agree. Buckingham’s first two allegations of error are undoubtedly Knaffla-b&rred because we expressly considered and rejected identical arguments in Buckingham’s direct appeal. Buckingham, 772 N.W.2d at 69-71 (<HOLDING>). We also briefly addressed and implicitly
holding that failure to provide any substance regarding the allegedly slanderous words in the complaint against the appellees was fatal to the appellants claim holding that because pleadings are to be liberally construed if the nature of the motion is clear from its substance an improper caption is not fatal holding that in similar factual situation no due process violation occurred holding that in eases where the state fails to disclose to the defendant prior to trial the substance of any oral statement allegedly made by the defendant then the state has committed a discovery violation and the trial court must conduct a richardson hearing upon learning of the possible violation holding that buckinghams failure to raise any factual disputes regarding the substance of the unrecorded statement at the omnibus hearing is fatal to his claimed scales violation and no improper contact occurred between the police and buckingham