Someone please help me. I think 3/4s of my battle for understanding 5th & 6th Amendment protections is realizing that we have so few of them.
I don’t really get Montejo. Are the following statements the practical effect of it?
D is arrested, Miranda is administered. D invokes neither silence nor counsel. (Then 1 of 2 things could happen: 1) D eventually breaks down & signs a full blown confession* or 2) D remains mute.) Later, D goes to arraignment. D is appointed counsel there. (So counsel was never invoked, but counsel did attach at the time formal proceedings commenced.) D talks to counsel & is released on bail. Later, when D is out of custody, police approach D and start pestering D with questions. D tells them to fuck off.
So this ^ is how it goes, right? It doesn’t matter that formal proceedings have begun, etc.? Police can initiate & seek waiver?
Is all the above true EVEN when D invoked counsel during the custodial interrogation?
If that ^ is true, is this all really coming down to custodial interrogations? As in - invoking the right to counsel while in custody allows you to have counsel present during custodial interrogations, but that right does not extend to non-custodial questioning, etc?

* So long as D understood the Miranda warning, then the confession will be admissible no matter what b/c D invoked neither.
If anyone can help me I would be super appreciative!!!!
Thanks!