Chad sent me a link for outcome in this case, and I wanted to see the decision to see how they got there. I can say, after reading it, that I agree with their logic.
The reason that what he said couldn’t be deemed inadmissible is because firstly, he didn’t invoke his right to remain silent. Secondly, he implicitly waived his right by answering the question. Further, after the police told him his rights, and while he did not invoke or waive those rights, they can still interrogate him.
The more in depth reasoning is as follows:
There was a prior Court ruling in which it said that there can be no ambiguity involved if one wishes to invoke their right to remain silent. His silence was riddled with answers throughout for the entire period, and that could cause ambiguity as to whether or not he was invoking his right. Further, he read a sheet that listed the rights, had the rights read to him, and read them aloud; there was no reason to doubt that he understood his rights. In addition, his statement wasn’t coerced, so it was in following that he voluntarily spoke and thus implicitly waived his right to remain silent. Had he truly wanted a clear and succinct showing that he was invoking his right, he could have either stated that he was to invoke his right, or that he would remain quietly throughout and not answer ANY questions.
That part of it is what it really boils down to. The other questions raised are more procedural, such as the other courts weren’t the proper venues for it to go since there was no issue of it violating federal law. Another one was that since the outcome would not have been any different with a different lawyer, barring their acceptance of his attempt to disallow his statement, his counsel was effective in what they did.