In Michigan v. Mosley the United States Supreme Court broadly held that the admissibility of statements obtained after a person in custody has decided to remain silent depends, under Miranda v. Arizona, on whether his "right to cut off questioning" was "scrupulously honored." The Court held: where an interrogation is immediately ceased when a fully informed suspect exercises his right to remain silent; a significant lapse of time passes before questioning is resumed; a fresh set of warnings is provided; and the questioning concerns an offense unrelated to the subject of the prior interrogation, then the defendant's right to cut off questioning has been so honored and, therefore, any statement obtained in the latter interrogation is admissible as evidence against the suspect at trial.
Wood, L. Lin Jr.
"Constitutional Law--Resumption of Questioning After Right to Remain Silent Has Been Exercised,"
Mercer Law Review: Vol. 27:
4, Article 16.
Available at: https://digitalcommons.law.mercer.edu/jour_mlr/vol27/iss4/16