Motion to suppress the defendant’s police statement; People v. Tierney; Whether he unequivocally invoked his right to counsel; “Prosecutorial vindictiveness” claim; United States v. Goodwin; Bordenkircher v. Hayes; Due process violation for punishing a person for asserting a protected statutory right; People v. Ryan; People v. Goeddeke; United States v. Gamez-Orduno (9th Cir.); Motion to sever marijuana manufacturing charges from CSC charges; MCR 6.120(B); Claim that the failure to record the audio of the first 50 minutes of jury selection denied defendant his due process right to proper appellate review; People v. Horton (After Remand); People v. Jackson; People v. Audison; Presumption of regularity; People v. Iacopelli; Juror selection as a matter of trial strategy; People v. Johnson; People v. Unger; Reference to jurors by badge number rather than name; People v. Williams; Disclosure to the jury of the trial court’s pretrial ruling that defendant’s Miranda rights were not violated; People v. Corbett; People v. Kincaid; “Judicial misconduct”; People v. Stevens; Ineffective assistance of counsel; People v. Petri; People v. Kevorkian; Factual predicate requirement; People v. Carbin; Failure to make a meritless argument; People v. Ericksen; Cross-examination as a matter of trial strategy; Motion for a mistrial; People v. Waclawski; People v. Lumsden

[Unpublished opinion.] Holding that the trial court correctly found that the defendant did not unequivocally invoke his right to counsel, the court affirmed the trial court’s denial of his motion to suppress his police statement. It also held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion to sever the marijuana manufacturing charges from the CSC charges, and rejected his claims of prosecutorial vindictiveness, judicial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of counsel. Further, the trial court’s video system’s failure to record the audio for the first 50 minutes of jury selection did not deny him his due process right to appellate review, and the trial court did not err in referring to the jurors by their badge numbers. Thus, the court affirmed his convictions of CSC I and IV, and manufacturing fewer than 20 marijuana plants. The video of the police interview showed that the detective (Q) read him his Miranda rights and that defendant signed a waiver form. Early in the interview, he “admitted making ‘bad choices’ but said on further questioning that he would rather talk to a lawyer before discussing the matter ‘in depth’ and then continued talking.” He later said “he was not ‘going to go in depth about the situation right now[]’ and, when asked if he wanted to ‘clear it up right now,’ defendant stated, ‘Well, not right now. I’d rather wait until I talk to a lawyer and see what type of charges I have against me, or what can be done to get this behind me.’” His first reference to an attorney “expressly indicated a desire to talk to counsel before discussing the allegations ‘in depth.’” He did not “unambiguously ask to speak to counsel or demand that questioning cease until he spoke to a lawyer. Rather, he expressed a declination to engage in a detailed discussion of the incident until he spoke to a lawyer.” His second comment “also followed another assertion that he did not wish to discuss the incident in depth and was in response to a question whether he wished to clear the matter up.” Overall, it appeared that Q reasonably interpreted his “comments as expressing a declination to discuss the incident in detail until defendant spoke to a lawyer.”