The People of the State of Colorado, Plaintiff-Appellant v. Michael Edward Lynn, Defendant-Appellee — Coats, J…

Summary

Justice Coats dissented because he believed the majority misstated and misapplied the federal rule governing requests for counsel during custodial interrogation. He maintained that an unambiguous request requires questioning to cease entirely, while an ambiguous or equivocal statement imposes no duty to clarify and permits continued questioning. Justice Eid joined the dissent.