context: Even assuming that appellant's request was ambiguous, it was the magistrate's duty to clarify that request and ascertain appellant's true desires.
citation_a.signal: no signal
citation_a.identifier: 742 S.W.2d 1, 4-5
citation_a.parenthetical: after pulling out business card and showing it to detective, appellant was taken back to judge who questioned accused about desire to make a statement
citation_a.sentence: Castillo v. State, 742 S.W.2d 1, 4-5 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (after pulling out business card and showing it to detective, appellant was taken back to judge who questioned accused about desire to make a statement); Russell v. State, 727 S.W.2d 573 (Tex.Crim.App.1987) (when accused’s desires are related in equivocal manner, interrogating officers not required to cease interview but must ask specific questions aimed at discovering accused’s true desire).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 106 S.Ct. 1410, 1410
citation_b.parenthetical: Sixth Amendment principles impute the State's knowledge from one state actor to another.
citation_b.sentence: See and compare, Michigan v. Jackson, 106 S.Ct. at 1410 (Sixth Amendment principles impute the State’s knowledge from one state actor to another.). Otherwise, the right to appointed counsel prior to or during custodial interrogation is rendered meaningless.