State v. Alston, 10 A.3d 880

Defendant Alston was arrested in a murder investigation and transported to Newark Police HQ for interrogation.
He was fully informed of Miranda rights, acknowledged understanding, and signed a waiver after a rights recitation.
Immediately after signing, but before questioning, he asked about counsel in a way the detectives treated as a request for advice, not an explicit right to counsel.
Detectives asked clarifying questions; he eventually confessed after a brief discussion about obtaining a lawyer if desired.
A motion to suppress his confession was granted by the trial court, but the Appellate Division reversed, concluding the questioning was permissible clarifying interrogation.
The Court granted review to determine whether the post-waiver statements were an equivocal invocation of counsel and whether clarifying questions were within permissible limits; the Court affirmed the Appellate Division.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the post-waiver statements were an ambivalent request for counsel.	Alston's words were ambiguous; police must clarify or stop.	The questions amounted to improper interrogation following an equivocal right to counsel.	No; statements were not ambiguous invocations; clarifications were permissible.
Whether the detective's clarifying questions exceeded permissible limits.	Clarifications help protect rights and avoid coerced waivers.	Clarifications could mislead or erode waiver validity.	The questions stayed within permissible clarification and did not elicit an incriminating response.
Whether the waiver of rights was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.	Clear, informed waiver followed proper Miranda advisements.	Misleading or confusing responses undermine waiver validity.	Waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452 (1994) (threshold standard of clarity for requests for counsel)
Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477 (1981) (post-request interrogation must cease unless counsel is made available)
State v. Reed, 133 N.J. 237 (1993) (any indication of desire for counsel triggers entitlement)
State v. Wright, 97 N.J. 113 (1984) (ambiguous statements require clarifying inquiry)
State v. Chew, 150 N.J. 30 (1997) (mother as conduit for counsel invocation; clarifications required)
State v. Johnson, 120 N.J. 263 (1990) (clarifications allowed, not interrogation; limits apply)
State v. Fussell, 174 N.J. Super. 14 (App. Div. 1980) (support for clarifying follow-up inquiries)