Whether a juvenile's right to stop an interrogation is violated when the interrogator refuses and insists that the questioning continues

QUESTIONS PRESENTED 1. During an interrogation, Thomas, fifteen-years-old at the time, began to make inculpatory statements. After hearing the statements, Thomas’ mother tried to stop the interview. Instead of stopping, the detective coaxed Thomas’ mother into allowing her to continue: A. Is ajuvenile’s right to stop an interrogation violated when the interrogator refuses and insists that the questioning continues? B. Did the detective violate Thomas’ right, asserted through his mother, to stop the police officer’s interrogation? 2. ‘Trial counsel filed a motion to suppress statements arguing that Thomas’ confession was the product of fear, duress, intimidation, menaces, threats, inducements and/or promises. Counsel did not argue that Thomas’ right to cut off questioning was contravened. A. Did counsel render ineffective assistance when he failed to inform the trial court of the police officer’s failure to end the interrogation when asked? 3. Appellate counsel argued the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress because Thomas’ confession was the product of fear, duress, intimidation, menaces, threats, inducements and/or promises. Counsel did not brief the appellate court about his failure to argue the violation of Thomas’ right to cut off questioning in the trial court. A. Did appellate counsel render ineffective assistance when he failed to argue that Thomas’ right to cut off questioning was not scrupulously honored? ii