with police. Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). 3 . Appellate Exhibit CXX at 10 (quoting Hutchins, 72 M.J. at 298). 4 . The specific issues raised by the Government are: (1) "Did the Military Judge err in finding that CAAF’s decision in United States v. Hutchins compelled the conclusion that [the appellee’s] statement must be suppressed, because [the ap-pellee] did not initiate further communication with law enforcement after he had invoked his right to counsel?" (2) "Even assuming arguendo that [the appellee’s] statement must be suppressed, did the military judge err in ruling that the physical DNA evidence must also be suppressed?” Government Brief on Interlocutory Appeal of 20 Aug 2013 at 2-3. 5 . Edwards, 451 U.S. at 485, 101 S.Ct. 1880 (<HOLDING>). 6 . Additionally, the stipulation contained
holding that under the fifth amendment once an accused person in custody has expressed his or her desire to deal with the police only through counsel that person is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available  unless the accused himself initiates further communication exchanges or conversations with the police holding that when an accused has invoked his right to have counsel present during custodial interrogation a valid waiver of that right cannot be established by showing only that he responded to further policeinitiated custodial interrogation even if he has been advised of his rights an accused  having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel is not subject to further interrogation by the authorities until counsel has been made available to him unless the accused himself initiates further communication exchanges or conversations with the police holding that edwards precludes further interrogation unless he the accused himself initiates further communications holding that an accused who has invoked the right to counsel is not subject to further interrogation unless the accused himself initiates further communication exchanges or conversations with the police holding that subsequent to an invocation of counsel the edwards per se rule does not apply if an accused himself initiates further communication exchanges or conversations with the police