What is the totality of circumstances in which a defendant waived his Miranda right to speak to a police officer?

The totality of the above circumstances demonstrates defendant's decision to speak to the officer was not the result of coercion. (People v. Gamache, supra 48 Cal.4th at p. 386.) Indeed, it was defendant who cut off the officers and asked the initial question, and it was defendant who kept inquiring into the case even after the officers informed him repeatedly that he had invoked his right and they could not talk to him. The above exchange demonstrates that although defendant initially invoked his right to counsel, he thereafter indicated his desire to speak to the officers regarding the case without his attorney present. The officers repeatedly reminded defendant of his rights, and he expressly waived them. Furthermore, defendant was reminded of his rights throughout the remainder of the interview. On this record, we find defendant initiated the questioning after invoking his right to an attorney and subsequently was reminded of and waived his Miranda rights. Therefore, his statement was admissible and defense counsel's failure to object necessarily did not constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.

Furthermore, it appears from the record that defense counsel had an additional tactical reason for not objecting to the admission of defendant's statement. Notwithstanding the fact that counsel is not required to make futile or frivolous motions (People v. Memro, supra, 11 Cal.4th at p. 834), it appears defendant had decided to

Page 25