When a suspect invokes the right to counsel during a custodial interview, can law enforcement officers continue to question the suspect if their post-invocation inquiries are not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminatory response?

QUESTION PRESENTED At the beginning of a custodial interview with district attorney investigators a week after his arrest for murder, Petitioner unambiguously invoked his right to counsel. Investigators nevertheless proceeded with questioning related to Petitioner’s arrest and the information he had received about the charged offense, leading to Petitioner’s waiver of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966). Petitioner thereafter made highly incriminating statements during the interview that were admitted at trial. In Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91 (1984), this Court held that “a// questioning must cease after an accused requests counsel” during a custodial interview. Id. at 98 (emphasis in original, citation omitted). This case presents the following question: When a suspect invokes the right to counsel during a custodial interview, can law enforcement officers continue to question the suspect if their post-invocation inquiries are not reasonably likely to elicit an incriminatory response? -i