I get all my legal training off the TV, so take my opinion for what it is worth...
If the police thought the girl was still alive, pehaps finding the girl quickly was their first priority. If this is the case, one can understand how their decision to continue to question the murderer even after he requested a lawyer came about.
The prosecution caught a break because the court is going to allow physical evidence form the girl's body to be used at the trial. I am certain the murderer's lawyer argued that this should be considered "fruit of the poisonous tree" and excluded as well. Hopefully the physical evidence will be enough to convict this man even without the confession.
Which means the case has a potent appellate issue built into it from the beginning.
There is no shortage of appellate court judges willing to gut such a case on "fruit of the poisonous tree" grounds. This miscreant could someday be as free as OJ.
After he is tried and convicted I am sure this will be the basis for appeal. The appelate courts are even more liberal than the trial courts.
Even the ba$tard who kidnapped and killed Carly Bruscia pled not guilty. We saw him on the video taking the little girl against her will.
Yes there is something wrong here and it begins and ends with defense attorneys for the most part.
It depends on the judge and the jurisdiction. Some hold if the perp expresses an interest in a lawyer but keeps on talking, the statements are fair game. Other hold that the police should immediately cease the interview, essentially telling him not to say another word. The story does not elaborate on the nature of the request. It could have been anything from, "I want a lawyer now!" to "Maybe I should have an attorney, but here goes!" It's just another sad case of the gun being loaded against the prosecution, and that gun has a don't-breathe-on-it hair trigger. BTW, I love your tagline, Grid. From your keyboard to God's ears.