With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). But the accused’s statement may be admitted nevertheless if an Edwards initiation occurs; that is, the statement is admissible “when, without influence by the authorities, the suspect shows a willingness and a desire to talk generally about his case.” United States v. Whaley, 13 F.3d 963, 967 (6th Cir.1994). Zagorski did not just express a voluntary willingness “to talk generally about his case” — he insisted on giving Detective Perry specific details. As a result, the state court decision was neither contrary to, nor involved an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law. Moreover, Zagorski cannot demonstrate that the admission of his June 1 statement was not harmless error. See Kyger v. Carlton, 146 F.3d 374, 382-83 (6th Cir.1998) (<HOLDING>). C. Jury Instruction on Malice Zagorski

A: holding that the district courts improper admission of an unauthenticated registration statement was harmless because the proponent of the registration statement later properly authenticated the statement in a motion to reconsider
B: holding that the admission of a statement obtained in violation of miranda v arizona 384 us 436 86 sct 1602 16 led2d 694 1966 resulted in harmless error because the defendant repeated the substance of the statement in a later admissible statement
C: recognizing miranda v arizona 384 us 436 468 86 sct 1602 1624 16 led2d 694 1966
D: holding that because the fifth amendment protects against the use of coerced statements at trial not mere compulsion a violation of the requirements set forth in miranda v arizona 384 us 436 86 sct 1602 16 led2d 694 1966 did not give rise to a  1983 claim
B.