claim here. See Stone v. Powell, supra. 4 . The state argues that the question asked Harryman was “a question in form only in the sense that it was uttered in general wonderment,” that it therefore did not call for an answer, and thus that Harryman’s response should be considered independently from the question as a statement that he simply “volunteered.” See Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. at 478, 86 S.Ct. at 1629. (“Volunteered statements of any kind are not barred by the Fifth Amendment and their admissibility is not affected by our holding today.”) The state does not contend, nor does it appear, that Harryman’s statement was unresponsive to the officer’s question and thus volunteered within the meaning of our decision in United States v. Menichino, 497 F.2d 935, 941 (5th Cir. 1974) (<HOLDING>). See also United States v. La Monica, 472 F.2d
holding statements by coconspirator nontestimonial and thus admissible holding admissible statements volunteered by accused during booking process but not in response to officerinitiated inquiries holding that selfinitiated statements volunteered after miranda warnings had been given are admissible holding inconsistent out of court statements otherwise admissible not admissible against government in criminal prosecution holding that evidence of customer inquiries is admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule