In what circumstances will the police be able to question a defendant's statement of intent to assert his right to counsel?

Comparing the defendant's language in the case at bar with these examples, we conclude that the defendant's language was ambiguous. Defendant's language was phrased in a question. It displayed a lack of decisiveness [11 Cal.App.4th 155] that the defendant wanted to assert his right to counsel. Under these circumstances, we hold that the police could properly, as they did, narrowly question the defendant further to determine whether he really wanted to assert his right to counsel. We realize that "post-request responses to further interrogation cannot be used to cast doubt on the clarity of the initial request" (Owen v. State of Ala. supra, 849 F.2d 536, 539); however, here the initial statement was not an invocation, and it was followed by clarifying questions and repeated offers by the police to obtain counsel for defendant, until such time as defendant elected to waive his right to counsel and to remain silent.