Does the Defendant have to waive his Miranda before making an unambiguous or unequivocal invocation of his right to counsel?

representative. Because . . . I'm not in any way saying we're done or anynot at all. [] . . . [] I'm just asking myself am I doing myself a disservice." Since this statement was made after a Miranda waiver, defendant was required to make an unambiguous or unequivocal invocation of his right to counsel, which defendant admits he did not do. Defendant's inquiry whether he was doing himself a "disservice by not having . . . a representative" is analogous to the post-Miranda waiver inquiry in Cunningham of "[s]hould I have somebody here talking for me," which was a "vague question" that did not require the detective to cease the interrogation. Defendant's reliance on People v. Duff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 527 is misplaced because, unlike the facts here, that case involved a vague prewaiver reference to counsel that required the officer to clarify the suspect's intentions and desire to waive his or her Miranda rights. (People v. Duff, supra, at p. 553.)