*697Parskey, J.

The defendant was indicted for the murder of Michael Aranow at the town of New Hartford on July 29, 1978. After a trial to the jury the defendant was convicted of the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree in violation of General Statutes § 53SL-55. 1 In his appeal the defendant asserts that the court erred in (1) refusing to suppress a number of items taken from him as a result of an alleged illegal seizure; (2) compelling him to submit to dental impressions and thereafter permitting the use of such impressions for identification purposes; (3) permitting evidence of alleged prior unrelated offenses; (4) restricting the defendant’s cross-examination of the state’s expert witness; (5) admitting in evidence a set of keys and a piece of hair taken from a key ring; (6) instructing the jury with respect to the offense of manslaughter in the first degree; and (7) refusing to set aside the guilty verdict because of alleged jury misconduct. We have examined each of these claims and find no error.

On the basis of the evidence presented at trial, the jury could have reasonably found the following facts: On a Saturday evening, July 29, 1978, the defendant and the victim, who were both students at the Columbia Medical School, traveled from the victim’s family home in *698Hastings-on-Hudson, New York, to New Hartford, Connecticut, to take a break from work on a school computer project. They arrived in New Hartford at the country estate of the victim’s family between 9:00 and 9:30 p.m. As they drove to the Kingdom Game Club, which adjoins the estate, the victim’s brother, Philip, noticed the lights of their automobile from the cabin in which he and a friend, Robert Lawrence Lane (Larry Lane), were staying and decided to find out who was entering the property. They drove to the game club and met the defendant and the victim.

The four young men exchanged greetings and introductions, after which the victim told his brother that he and the defendant were going to the lookout at the top of Jones’ Mountain and that they might see them later that night at Philip’s cabin. Because it was a particularly “buggy” night, Philip offered to them some insect spray. The four parted, but neither the defendant nor the victim went to Philip’s cabin later that night.

The defendant and the victim proceeded to walk through the woods about one mile until they reached the lookout. Because the night was so dark, the victim had to lead the defendant by the hand. When they arrived at the lookout some unexplained emotion or circumstance, induced perhaps by a mind-altering drug, led the defendant to slay the victim brutally by stabbing him with a knife over 100 times in the face, back, buttocks and left leg, and slashing his throat. Some of the wounds were inflicted post-mortem. The defendant also bit the victim on the upper left portion of his back, over the scapula.

The defendant then attempted to hide the body by moving it, but succeeded in moving it only five and one-half to six feet. He left the scene, covered with blood, looking for some place where he could wash the blood *699off of his clothing. As he walked through the woods, he hid somewhere the knife that he had carried to the scene in a “day pack” and the shirt he was wearing, which was drenched in blood, and came upon a stream or nearby pond, where he attempted to wash the blood from the rest of his clothing. He also smeared silt and dirt all over the front of his jeans.

After day broke, on Sunday morning, he walked down to the home of the victim’s uncle, Frank Jones. Jones was awakened at 7:30 a.m. by the defendant’s shouts at the front door and the barking of Jones’ dogs. Coming to the door in his pajamas, Jones found the defendant, stripped to the waist, clad in blue jeans that were soaking wet. The defendant, who was obviously tense, told Jones that he and the victim had been in the woods when they encountered “two guys with a gun.” He had escaped but could not find the victim, and wanted to call the police and the victim’s parents right away. Jones, who knew that his nephew was familiar with the woods, wanted to find out more before getting excited and calling the police or the Aranows.

After the defendant mentioned the victim’s name, Jones let him into the house. The defendant asked for a drink of water and asked also if he could wash his hands, which he was permitted to do at the kitchen sink. Jones noted that, while the defendant wore no shirt, he had no bruises or insect bites anywhere on the exposed part of his body. He could also observe that the defendant appeared to be on drugs or to have been drinking. In response to Jones’ question about the matter, the defendant said that he thought he and the victim had had a couple of beers.

The defendant went on to tell Jones that the night before, he and the victim were walking to a place on the top of the mountain, where there was a view, when they were approached by two drunken men, one of *700whom had a gun. According to the defendant, the men asked the victim and him for something, after which the defendant shoved the man with the gun into the other, and he and the victim ran off into the woods.

Jones and the defendant then proceeded in Jones’ automobile up Steele Road and onto Henderson Road to Philip Aranow’s cabin in order to see if Michael was there. At the cabin, the defendant requested and was given a shirt to wear. He began to give additional details about what had happened the night before, saying that he had seen the flash of a knife one of the men had; that one of the men chased him through the woods for a long time; and that his shirt had been lost as he ran through the woods. The defendant kept repeating that they should call the police. He then went by car with Philip Aranow and Larry Lane to the victim’s car and the Kingdom Game Club. Having parked Philip’s car on the road to the lookout, they proceeded on foot towards the lookout. Jones had taken his car and gone back down Henderson Road and Steele Road to his home and then up the mountain from the opposite direction.

As the three young men approached the lookout, the defendant, who had been calling out for the victim, fell back from the other two. Jones approached from the other direction and saw the body of the victim lying face down at the lookout. He approached the body while the three young men remained on the dirt road, tried to find a vital sign, and, when he did not, told the others that Michael was dead. Frank Jones left the three young men near the lookout as he went to call the police.

Trooper Joseph Bieluch was the first officer to arrive and hear the defendant’s explanation. He noted that the defendant’s jeans were extremely dirty and wet, as if smeared with silt from a pond. His jogging shoes *701were also wet, though his hands and arms were clean. He was wearing his glasses and had no apparent bug bites, scratches or cuts. He had a red substance in the corners of his mouth, which appeared to be blood, and Bieluch detected the foul smell of rancid blood. The trooper believed that the defendant was under the influence of something.

Later, the three young men went down to the Jones’ residence to give statements to the police. The defendant was interviewed by Trooper Calkins. He stated that, after he and Michael had left Philip and Larry, they walked about one-half hour into the woods when suddenly they were confronted by two men before they reached the lookout. He said that these men “just appeared right in front of them.” Yet, the only description he could give of them was their relative height. He assumed that they were males by their voices, about which there was nothing unusual. He said the shorter of the two was carrying a long gun, and the taller had something in his hand that “glinted.” Their breath smelled of alcohol. He said the two men made a demand of some kind for their belongings and that he suddenly pushed the smaller of the two into the other and ran off with Michael. Almost immediately, they became separated. He said he ran in the woods for about one-half hour before he stopped to rest, when he heard what sounded like a gunshot. Neither Philip nor Larry heard any gunshots or other strange sounds during the evening. The defendant also told Trooper Calkins that, while running through the woods, he had lost his “day pack” and his shirt had been ripped off of his body by the branches and brush.

Later, the defendant was asked to reduce his statement to writing at the New Hartford Town Hall. There, Troopers Robert Terry and Richard Raposa saw spots on the defendant’s blue jeans that appeared to be blood. When asked to empty his pockets, the defendant pro*702duced a key ring on which a red hair, similar to the victim’s, was embedded in blood. The defendant, who was surprised to see the blood and hair, wanted to know how long it would take the lab to determine whether or not it was blood. When Sergeant Henry DesChamps later asked the defendant to describe his assailants, he merely shrugged his shoulders and gave no answer.

During the interview at Town Hall, Sergeant DesChamps asked the defendant if he had killed the victim. The defendant paused for a few moments and, looking down, said “no.” Before he left the New Hartford Town Hall, he shook hands with DesChamps, thanked him for the way he had treated him, and promised to come back some day and tell him what had happened on the hill.

The investigation of the scene began upon discovery of the body and continued for a number of days thereafter. An expert in crime scene analysis testified that there was no sign of a struggle on the small path leading to the lookout or at the nearby road, but that there was a primary and secondary crime scene at the lookout, and that the body had been lifted five and one-half to six feet from the primary to the secondary scene. He also stated that there would have been no way for two men to drag or otherwise force the victim onto the lookout over the small path without creating some disturbance to the path or the vegetation surrounding it.

Expert dog track evidence was presented by Trooper Andrew Rebmann who handled the bloodhound “Clem.” An American Kennel Club registered bloodhound, Clem had been cited for tracking a person who had been missing for eight days and another young girl, found alive after being missing for three days. Clem acquired the scent of the victim from his shoe and tracked him, with a good strong pull, from the Kingdom Game Club (where his car was parked) along the dirt roads leading *703to the lookout. Without variation, Clem went directly to the lookout, circled at a pool of scent of the victim and stopped. The track demonstrated that the victim had never run from any assailant, but proceeded directly to the lookout.

A wide-ranging search of Jones’ Mountain by the state police and over one hundred volunteers with metal detectors, failed to yield evidence of a ripped shirt, day pack, spent gun shells or any other evidence that would substantiate the defendant’s story. All the ponds were searched by Connecticut state police divers without yielding evidence of the crime.

The mountain, as depicted in state’s exhibits A, D, X, and Y, was a rugged area of deep, thick woods and full underbrush.

Agent Robert Spalding, of the FBI laboratory, testified that human blood was found in the knees and surrounding front area of the defendant’s blue jeans and was especially apparent on the front inside portion of the jeans. The blood stain covered a surface of 12" x 8" on the front of the right leg and 9" x 5" on the front of the left leg. No further tests could be done, however, because of the dirt embedded in the fabric and the fact that the blood had been diluted by water.

Other expert testimony indicated that the hair on the key ring originated from the head of the victim and had been embedded in human blood on the defendant’s key ring. Finally, Dr. Lester Luntz, a forensic odontologist, testified, after exhaustive comparative analysis that, to a “reasonable degree of dental certainty,” the bite mark on the victim’s back had been inflicted by the defendant’s teeth.

On the basis of this evidence, the defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree; General *704Statutes § 53a-55; and was sentenced thereon to a prison term of not less than seven years nor more than fourteen.

I

Probable Cause to Seize on Jones’ Mountain

The defendant claims that he was illegally seized by Trooper Bieluch while the two of them were at the top of Jones’ Mountain and that since Bieluch had insufficient probable cause to make a warrantless arrest at that point any statements or items of personal property taken from him incidental to such arrest were illegally seized in violation of the fourth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution. If, in fact, the defendant was seized in a constitutional sense at that point, in the absence of probable cause, such seizure would be unreasonable within the meaning of the fourth amendment; Dunaway v. New York, 442 U.S. 200, 99 S. Ct. 2248, 60 L. Ed. 2d 824 (1979); and under article first, § 7 of the Connecticut constitution; State v. Ostroski, 186 Conn. 287, 290, 440 A.2d 984, cert. denied, 459 U.S. 878, 103 S. Ct. 173, 74 L. Ed. 2d 142 (1982); and the fruit of such seizure, whether consisting of oral statements; Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471, 83 S. Ct. 407, 9 L. Ed. 2d 441 (1963); or personal property; State v. Federici, 179 Conn. 46, 53, 425 A.2d 916 (1979); would be subject to suppression.

It is not at all clear that the defendant was seized in a constitutional sense by Trooper Bieluch on Jones’ Mountain. The trial court observed that Bieluch had a right to preserve the scene where the body was found. To the extent that this observation suggests a murder scene exception to the constitutional requirements respecting search and seizure no such exception is recognized. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 98 S. Ct. 2408, 57 L. Ed. 2d 290 (1978). Nevertheless, the sitúa*705tion in which Bieluch found himself at the murder scene is not totally irrelevant to the question of whether the defendant was detained on Jones’ Mountain.

If Trooper Bieluch had probable cause to arrest the defendant at the lookout on Jones’ Mountain then any articles seized from him incidental to that arrest would not be subject to suppression on fourth amendment grounds. State v. Penland, 174 Conn. 153, 155, 384 A.2d 356, cert. denied, 436 U.S. 906, 98 S. Ct. 2237, 56 L. Ed. 2d 404 (1978). Probable cause means more than mere suspicion. There must be facts and circumstances within the officer’s knowledge, and of which he has trustworthy information, sufficient to justify the belief of a reasonable person that a felony has been committed and that the person subject to being arrested has committed it. State v. Acklin, 171 Conn. 105, 113, 368 A.2d 212 (1976). If probable cause to arrest exists, whether the officer intended to arrest at that point is of no consequence. State v. Carter, 189 Conn. 611, 619, 458 A.2d 369 (1983). Because our consideration of the probable cause issue is dispositive of the trial court’s ruling on the motion to suppress we need not consider whether the defendant was in fact seized at the lookout and if so whether his detention could be justified on the basis of something less than probable cause, namely, an articulable suspicion. See United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544, 100 S. Ct. 1870, 64 L. Ed. 2d 497, reh. denied, 448 U.S. 908, 100 S. Ct. 3051, 65 L. Ed. 2d 1138 (1980).

The facts pertinent to the seizure issue are the following: At approximately 8:25 on the morning of July 30, 1978, Trooper Bieluch of the Connecticut state police received a call in his office at the Town Hall in New Hartford from Frank Jones advising him that there had been a murder on Jones’ Mountain. Jones, who is part owner of a large country estate in New Hartford, informed Bieluch that he had discovered on *706the mountain the body of his nephew and related some sketchy details of what he knew of the incident. He stated that his nephew and a friend had been camping out on the mountain when they were accosted by two intoxicated people; the friend ran away and, in the morning, came to the Jones’ house telling Jones what had happened and that he could not find Michael. They later discovered Michael’s body.

Trooper Bieluch, who arrived at the Jones’ home at around 8:30 a.m., picked up Jones and proceeded with him to the lookout, which is located near the top of Jones’ Mountain and about 1.4 miles from the Jones’ residence. The gravel road to the lookout is surrounded on both sides by woods and dense brush. When they arrived at the lookout they met Philip Aranow, the victim’s brother, Larry Lane, a friend of Philip’s, and Steven Asherman, the defendant. Bieluch saw the body of the victim, which had multiple stab wounds and was surrounded by large amounts of blood.

The trooper then proceeded to interview those who were present. He began with Philip Aranow who told him that on the previous evening he and Lane had been at the Aranow cabin, which is on the same road that leads to the lookout, when the victim and the defendant arrived on the property. After speaking briefly with them at the Kingdom Game Club, the victim and the defendant both left. At around 7:30 the next morning, his uncle, Jones, and the defendant arrived, reported to him that his brother Michael was missing, and asked him to help in the effort to find him. Lane, who was interviewed next, confirmed the account given by Philip Aranow.

Trooper Bieluch then asked the defendant what had happened. The defendant responded by saying that the night before he and the victim were walking on the road toward the lookout when they were met by two intoxi*707cated men, one of whom, he thought, was carrying a shotgun of some kind. After these two men began antagonizing and intimidating the victim and him, he pushed one of the men into the other and ran off into the brush and hid for awhile. He later resumed running through the woods, after which he stopped and fell asleep. When he awoke it was daylight, and, although he did not know where he was, he proceeded down the mountain where he came upon the home of Frank Jones. When Jones came to the door in response to the defendant’s knocking, the defendant related to him the same account of what had occurred.

As the defendant was speaking, the trooper noticed several things about his appearance: He was looking down at the ground all of the time. His blue jean pants and shoes were wet and extremely soiled. The pants looked as if somebody had deliberately rubbed silt from a pond or stream on them. The entire front and sides of the pants were covered with silt while the rest of his body was very clean. The defendant was wearing glasses, which were clean and had no device to hold them in place, and he did not have any visible scratch marks or insect bite marks.

As the interview continued, these facts combined to raise in the trooper’s mind serious doubts about the truthfulness of the defendant’s story given the density of the brush in the area, the number of insects, and the obvious fact that whoever perpetrated the killing would probably be covered with blood or would have attempted to wash it out of his clothing or discard any stained clothing. Moreover, Bieluch also observed what, from his training and substantial experience, appeared to be dried blood caked on the corners of the defendant’s mouth and detected from his mouth the foul odor of rancid blood. Finally, Bieluch observed that the defendant, who was incoherent at times and unsure of his answers to questions, appeared to be under the influ*708ence of some mind-altering drug, the symptoms of which he had seen on numerous occasions. That fact, of course, would have been consistent with the unexplained brutality of the slaying.

At this point the defendant began asking the trooper if he could go down to the Jones’ house to take a shower. Trooper Bieluch advised him that he would prefer that he not leave because certain things needed to be done at the scene and that he wanted him to remain there until troopers from the Canaan barracks would arrive. The defendant, who agreed to remain, went on to respond to questions from Bieluch concerning the details of his account. When asked about his shirt, he said that it had been ripped off by the branches as he was running through the brush and that he did not know where it was.

Trooper Bieluch then asked Jones to recount what had happened. He reiterated that the defendant had come to his home that morning reporting that there had been trouble on the hill and that he could not find Michael. Jones had not been particularly concerned since he knew that the victim was familiar with the woods. Jones went on to state that when the defendant arrived at his home he was wearing no shirt and that Philip Aranow and Lane had supplied him with the yellow shirt he was then wearing.

When the defendant asked again if he could go to'the Jones’ house and take a shower, Trooper Bieluch suggested that he could take the defendant to the house where he could have a cup of coffee. Again, the trooper, who had substantial doubts about the veracity of the defendant’s story, was concerned about alteration of the crime scene or any potential evidence before the arrival of the investigative team from Canaan and the major crime squad. The trooper, Jones and the defendant left the scene of the homicide at around 9:30 a.m. *709and drove to the Jones’ home in the trooper’s cruiser, meeting as they arrived simultaneously three troopers from the Canaan barracks. The defendant exited the cruiser and walked across the lawn and entered the Jones’ home as Bieluch began briefing Sergeant Timmons, in Trooper Calkins’ presence, on what had occurred prior to his arrival. Timmons then assigned Troopers Bieluch and Bernstein, who had arrived with him, to guard the scene of the crime. They both went to the scene after which Bieluch brought Philip Aranow and Lane down to the Jones’ residence. In the meantime Lieutenant Smith, commander of the Canaan barracks, and Trooper John McGoldrick arrived. Troopers Bieluch, Calkins and McGoldrick were then assigned to interview individually the witnesses Aranow, the defendant, and Lane, respectively. Bieluch gathered all three witnesses together on the closed-in porch of the home and advised them all together of their Miranda rights. When he asked them whether they understood their rights each one individually indicated that he was fully aware of his rights. The individual interviews then began.

There was sufficient probable cause to justify the defendant’s seizure on Jones’ Mountain. Thus there was no fourth amendment basis for suppressing any of the evidence obtained from him. The following information was available to Bieluch at the time he requested the defendant to remain at the scene: the victim’s body was lying face down next to a pool of blood and the defendant was the last person known to have been with the victim before his death. The person who killed the victim would probably have been covered with blood as a result of the method of killing. The defendant was wearing blue jeans that were wet and soiled in front with what appeared to be silt from a nearby pond and stream. The silt appeared to have been deliberately rubbed into the pants. The remainder of the defend*710ant’s body was very clean, except that what appeared to be dried blood was caked on the corners of the defendant’s mouth. The foul odor of rancid blood was detected on the defendant’s breath. The defendant, who claimed to have been running and stumbling through dense forest throughout a black midsummer night, nevertheless had no visible scratch marks or insect bite marks on his body. There were also no scratch marks on the glasses he was wearing. During the interview the defendant would not look at Bieluch but instead kept looking at the ground. The defendant appeared to be under the influence of some kind of mind altering drug, a possible explanation for the brutality of the crime. Viewing this information in its totality, Bieluch had reasonable grounds to believe that the defendant had committed the murder.

II

Rulings on Evidence

A

USE OF DENTAL IMPRESSIONS

On motion of the state, Practice Book, 1963, § 2186 et seq. (now § 775 et seq.), the defendant, pursuant to court order, was compelled to permit the taking of wax impressions and photographs of his teeth. The defendant claims that the taking of these impressions and photographs violated his right, under article first, § 8 of the Connecticut constitution, not to give evidence against himself. The defendant asserts further that the use of such evidence by the state’s dental expert constituted an impermissible identification procedure in violation of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution and that, in any event, the state’s dental expert should not have been permitted to give an opinion concerning the probability that *711the bite mark on the shoulder blade of the victim was made by the defendant because there was no factual basis for such opinion.

d)

Connecticut’s Privilege of Self-Incrimination

Article first, § 8 of the Connecticut constitution provides in part: “No person shall be compelled to give evidence against himself . . . .” The defendant points to the language of the fifth amendment to the federal constitution which reads that “[no person] shall be compelled ... to be a witness against himself” and argues that because of the difference in language the protection afforded by the state constitution is broader and that by the use of the word “evidence” the state constitution was intended to cover both testimonial and nontestimonial evidence. We disagree.

The privilege against self-incrimination embodied in article first, § 8 has its genesis in the common law. Historically the privilege became part of the common law because of the experience with the oath ex officio as used originally in the ecclesiastical courts and later in the Court of the Star Chamber. 8 Wigmore, Evidence (McNaughton Rev.) § 2250. The seemingly innocuous oath which bound a person under examination to make a true answer to all questions that might be asked was used to force him to destroy himself by his own testimony. If his compelled testimony convicted him, he was punished. If he refused to take the oath, he was subjected to torture. Finally, when John Lilburn in 1637 refused to take the oath ex officio in the Star Chamber and received parliamentary support in his refusal, the principle embodied in the Latin phrase nemo tenetur seipsum accusare (no one is bound to accuse himself) had its origins and ultimately came to be accepted in the common law courts. McCormick, Evidence (2d Ed.) § 114. At common law the privilege protected against *712any activity performed for the purpose of communicating. Id., § 124. Noncommunicative evidence such as fingerprints or photographs was not included within the privilege. The purpose of incorporating the privilege in our state constitution was to place this right as it was known at common law beyond legislative abolition. State v. Torello, 103 Conn. 511, 513, 131 A. 429 (1925).

The defendant argues that the difference in language between article first, § 8 of the state constitution (“[n]o person shall be compelled to give evidence against himself”) and the fifth amendment of the federal constitution (“[no person] shall be compelled . . . to be a witness against himself”) suggests that the two provisions should not receive the same construction. The thrust of his argument is that being a witness generally refers to giving testimony whereas giving evidence includes both testimonial and nontestimonial material. Our cases, while not focusing on the linguistic differences nevertheless have not drawn the suggested distinction. Cf. State v. Anonymous (1976-2), 32 Conn. Sup. 306, 311, 353 A.2d 789 (1976). We have approved, for example, the admission of a photograph taken of the accused; State v. Hackett, 182 Conn. 511, 516, 438 A.2d 726 (1980); the taking of paraffin casts of a defendant’s hands; State v. Chesney, 166 Conn. 630, 640, 353 A.2d 783, cert. denied, 419 U.S. 1004, 95 S. Ct. 324, 42 L. Ed. 2d 280 (1974); the seizure of mud-stained shoes to compare with a plaster cast of a footprint; State v. Smith, 156 Conn. 378, 383, 242 A.2d 763 (1968); the introduction in evidence of the defendant’s blood stained shoes; State v. Hassett, 155 Conn. 225, 232, 230 A.2d 553 (1967); and the use of fingerprints. State v. Chin Lung, 106 Conn. 701, 723, 139 A. 91 (1927).

We have construed the state constitutional privilege as being declaratory of the common law. State v. Monahan, 96 Conn. 289, 290, 114 A. 102 (1921). “The common-law maxim nemo tenetur seipsum acensare has *713been incorporated in the constitutions of nearly every State and appears in our Declaration of Rights in the provision that an accused ‘shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself.’ Conn. Const., Article First, § 9 [now § 8]. The history of the development of the privilege discloses that the object sought to be attained thereby was the prevention of the employment of legal process to extract from the person’s own lips an admission of his guilt which would then take the place of evidence.” State v. Ford, 109 Conn. 490, 496, 146 A. 828 (1929). We have also noted that compulsion which makes a suspect or accused the source of real or physical evidence has been held not to violate a person’s constitutional rights as it is not such as compels “communications” or “testimony”; State v. Chesney, supra; and in this respect we cited the following examples. Cupp v. Murphy, 412 U.S. 291, 93 S. Ct. 2000, 36 L. Ed. 2d 900 (1973) (taking scrapings from fingernails over protest); Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S. Ct. 1951, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1178 (1967); United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S. Ct. 1926, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1149 (1967) (compelling a demonstration of the accused’s voice); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757, 86 S. Ct. 1826, 16 L. Ed. 2d 908 (1966) (withdrawing blood sample).

In our most recent discussion of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination we made the following observation: “Judicial review of an asserted invasion of the protection against compelled self-incrimination must focus on whether the state (1) actually compelled the claimant to disclose (2) testimonial communications (3) which tended to incriminate him.” (Emphasis added.) State v. Smith, 185 Conn. 63, 83, 441 A.2d 84 (1981). And in State v. Acquin, 187 Conn. 647, 678 n.15, 448 A.2d 163 (1982), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1229, 103 S. Ct. 3570, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1411 (1983), we noted that compelling an accused to drop his pants so as to expose non-*714testimonial scratches on his thigh would not violate his constitutional rights. Thus, if there is a constitutional distinction to be drawn in self-incrimination cases between giving testimony and giving evidence, our cases have not reflected it. State v. Anonymous (1976-2), supra.

Seventeen states2 have language in their constitutions comparable to the “giving evidence” language in article first, § 8. None of these states3 has construed this phrase as excluding all nontestimonial evidence. Utah, which construes its provision as broader than the federal counterpart, would preclude compelling an accused to give a handwriting sample because that would require a defendant to perform an affirmative act. Hansen v. Owens, 619 P.2d 315 (Utah 1980); accord *715 Creamer v. State, 229 Ga. 511, 192 S.E.2d 350 (1972). Utah would not preclude the use of a hair sample because that does not require an affirmative act. State v. Van Dam, 554 P.2d 1324 (Utah 1976). For our part, we agree with the observation that “there is really, in spirit and in principle, no distinction arising out of such difference of language.” Counselman v. Hitchcock, 142 U.S. 547, 586, 12 S. Ct. 195, 35 L. Ed. 1110 (1892). We hold that compelling the defendant to submit to the taking of a dental impression did not violate article first, § 8 of the Connecticut constitution.

(2)

Dental Impression—Due Process

The defendant objected to the state’s motion permitting it to take a dental impression of the defendant on the additional ground that the procedure violated the defendant’s rights to due process in that it permitted the state to identify the defendant by means of an impermissibly suggestive procedure. The defendant’s claim is that by permitting Dr. Luntz, the state’s expert, to compare the teeth of the defendant with the bite mark on the victim’s body, when Luntz knew the defendant was the accused, the court permitted an impermissibly suggestive identification procedure. This claim is without merit.

Expert testimony is used in a variety of situations such as a comparison of fingerprints, voiceprints and bite marks. The state correctly observes that the defendant’s analogy to eyewitness identification is misconceived. “Wade [United States v. Wade, 388 U.S. 218, 87 S. Ct. 1926, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1149 (1967)] and Gilbert [Gilbert v. California, 388 U.S. 263, 87 S. Ct. 1951, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1178 (1967)] fashion exclusionary rules to deter law enforcement authorities from exhibiting an accused to witnesses before trial for identification purposes without notice to and in the absence of counsel. *716A conviction which rests on a mistaken identification is a gross miscarriage of justice. The Wade and Gilbert rules are aimed at minimizing that possibility by preventing the unfairness at the pretrial confrontation that experience has proved can occur and assuring meaningful examination of the identification witness’ testimony at trial.” Stovall v. Denno, 388 U.S. 293, 297, 87 S. Ct. 1967, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1199 (1967). There are substantial differences between the problems faced by an accused when confronted by identification procedures utilized by law enforcement authorities with respect to eyewitnesses and any problems which may arise from a systematized or scientific analysis of the accused’s fingerprints, blood sample, clothing, hair and the like. “Knowledge of the techniques of science and technology is sufficiently available, and the variables in techniques few enough, that the accused has the opportunity for a meaningful confrontation of the Government’s case at trial through the processes of cross-examination of the Government’s expert witnesses and the presentation of the evidence of his own experts.” United States v. Wade, supra, 227-28.

(3)

Factual Basis for Dr. Luntz’s Opinion

The defendant claims that the testimony of Luntz was inadmissible because there was no way of knowing the precise position of the victim’s scapula at the time the bite was inflicted. We disagree.

In order to render an expert opinion the witness must be qualified to do so and there must be a factual basis for the opinion. The trial court has a wide discretion in ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony and the exercise of this discretion is not to be disturbed unless it has been abused or the error is clear and involves a misconception of the law. Going v. Pagani, 172 Conn. 29, 35, 372 A.2d 516 (1976). Where the fac*717tual basis of an opinion is challenged the question before the court is whether the uncertainties in the essential facts on which the opinion is predicated are such as to make an opinion based on them without substantial value. Berndston v. Annino, 177 Conn. 41, 46, 411 A.2d 36 (1979); Sears v. Curtis, 147 Conn. 311, 314-15, 160 A.2d 742 (1960). The question is not whether the opinion would be more or less persuasive depending on the presence or absence of a given fact but rather whether the missing fact is such an essential part of the factual foundation for the opinion that its absence would rob the opinion of its persuasive force. Maroncelli v. Starkweather, 104 Conn. 419, 424, 133 A. 209 (1926).

Luntz believed that a meaningful comparison could be made between the photographs of the bite mark and the photographs and models of the defendant’s teeth. He testified that after viewing the photographs that showed the bite mark he obtained life size enlargements of them. He then took impressions of the defendant’s dentition and made corresponding models. He photographed the defendant’s teeth and took special scan photographs inside the defendant’s mouth. He then created a “mirror image” photograph of the defendant’s teeth to aid the jury in comparing the bite mark photograph with the photograph of the defendant’s teeth. He then conducted bite mark experiments involving the scapula, over which the skin that was bitten was located. He examined the photographs and models for the purpose of discerning the unique characteristics of the defendant’s dentition and comparing those characteristics with the photographs of the bite mark.

Luntz observed from the photograph of the bite mark that there was no impression made by the biter’s tooth number nine (left frontal incisor). He also noted that while teeth numbers four, seven and eight left distinct marks, tooth number nine left none and teeth numbers ten and eleven left only faint marks. He concluded that, *718because every other available point of comparison between the bite mark and the defendant’s dentition matched and the mark evidenced a variation of pressure on imprint, the mark was produced while the scapula was located so as to create pressure under teeth numbers four, six, seven and eight but not under nine. Although Luntz could not testify with certainty as to the precise position of the scapula at the time of the bite, this circumstance did not render his opinion inadmissible. Assuming that the position of the scapula at the time of the bite was a significant factor in making a bite mark comparison, the fact that in this case the position was unknown or unknowable would go the weight of Luntz’s opinion and not to its admissibility.

B

RESTRICTIONS ON CROSS-EXAMINATION OF STATE’S EXPERTS

The defendant claims that the trial court erred in limiting his cross-examination of Luntz. Specifically the defendant asserts that he was denied an opportunity to inquire respecting Luntz’s hobby of collecting a variety of police accouterments and that he was further denied the opportunity to demonstrate that on another occasion his opinion concerning bite mark identification turned out to be erroneous.

“The right of an accused to effectively cross-examine an adverse witness is embodied in the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment. Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 94 S. Ct. 1105, 39 L. Ed. 2d 347 (1974); Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415, 85 S. Ct. 1074, 13 L. Ed. 2d 934 (1965). . . . The general rule is that restrictions on the scope of cross-examination are within the sound discretion of the trial judge . . . but this discretion comes into play only after the defendant has been permitted cross-examination sufficient to satisfy the sixth amendment.” State v. Gaynor, 182 *719Conn. 501, 508, 438 A.2d 749 (1980). Therefore, the threshold question is whether the cross-examination of Luntz accorded to defense counsel at trial satisfied the principle enunciated in Davis v. Alaska, supra.

The defendant’s avowed purpose for the inquiry into Luntz’s hobby was to show his close relationship to law enforcement authorities. This inquiry cannot be examined in a vacuum. Prior to this inquiry the defendant had elicited ample evidence of Luntz’s relationship with law enforcement agencies which rendered this testimony cumulative. After Luntz had testified, as part of his qualification, that he had been appointed as a Connecticut state police surgeon in 1963 and currently held this position with the rank of captain, the defendant elicited on cross-examination testimony concerning Luntz’s initial involvement with the state police, his private socializing with police and attendance at police social functions and his receipt of a gift from the police department. In the light of the elicited information the additional inquiry was not only cumulative but was also of questionable relevance and, in any event, in context amounted to nothing more than evidential fluff.

Irving M. Sopher, chief medical examiner for the state of West Virginia and a forensic pathologist and odontologist, testified for the state as an expert rebuttal witness. On cross-examination the defendant sought to inquire if he and Luntz had testified in the same cases, if Luntz had referred work to him, and if he had seen Luntz over the lunch break. Upon objection all of these questions were excluded. The defendant claimed that he had a right to show the relationship of these witnesses to each other and how that relationship may affect their judgment.

Bias may consist of a friendly feeling or of hostility. It may be shown in a variety of ways. Implied bias may be shown by the relationship of a witness to a party; *720this may also include an intimate family relationship to a person other than a party. 3A Wigmore, Evidence (Chadbourn Rev.) § 949. Social and business relationships depending on their nature or character, may also have a tendency to show bias. When the issue involves the relationship between a witness and a party, cross-examination of the witness to demonstrate this relationship is a matter of right which may not be unduly restricted. Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 51 S. Ct. 218, 75 L. Ed. 624 (1931). This may also be true in many cases involving the relationship of witnesses to each other. Under the peculiar facts of this case, however, the matter involved the exercise of discretion.

Although Luntz and Sopher were both on the prosecution team their roles were different. Luntz supported the prosecution theory that the defendant had perpetrated the homicide by identifying the bite mark on the victim’s shoulder blade as having been made by the defendant. Sopher’s testimony, on the other hand, was offered to rebut the testimony of the defendant’s experts, the main thrust of which was that the defendant’s teeth could not have produced the bite mark in question. It was Sopher’s opinion that the defendant could not be excluded as the biter. Upon objection by the defendant Sopher was precluded from testifying whether in his opinion the defendant had actually bitten the decedent.

The defendant’s claim was that Luntz and Sopher were part of the same team and that as such one tended to testify consistently with the other. That being so, the defendant argues, he had a right to show the social and business relationship that may have played a role in producing this symbiotic testimonial result. Had Sopher supported Luntz’s opinion that the bite mark had been caused by the defendant there is no question but that it would have been appropriate for the defendant to have shown the social and business relationship *721between the two in relation to their joint testimony in this and other cases. Even in this case where the testimonial connection is more attenuated, the trial court would have been well advised to have exercised its discretion in favor of permitting the inquiry. But on the facts of this case we cannot conclude that the ruling constituted an abuse of the court’s discretion. In Luntz’s opinion the evidence ruled the defendant in. In Sopher’s opinion the evidence did not rule the defendant out. Although in a general sense Sopher’s testimony supports Luntz it is much too oblique to warrant as a matter of right the implied bias inquiry based on the relationship of the two expert witnesses.

In determining whether the cross-examination of Sopher was unduly restricted it is the entire cross-examination which we must examine. State v. Wilson, 188 Conn. 715, 720, 453 A.2d 765 (1982). When the examination is measured against this standard we cannot conclude that the defendant’s rights were violated. The examination of Sopher’s qualifications covered more than twenty-nine pages of transcript and covered such matters as Sopher’s knowledge of bite mark analysis techniques, the extent to which he had been informed about other witness’ testimony, the accuracy of the molds and photographs he had prepared and the accuracy of his analysis generally. He was also confronted with his own testimony in an Illinois case in which both he and Luntz had testified for the prosecution, testimony which appeared to contradict views he was expressing in the case on trial. The defendant on cross-examination was permitted to paint a sufficient picture of Sopher so as to permit the jury to pass on his credibility.

III

Hair and Blood Samples

The trial court admitted into evidence a strand of hair which had been removed from the defendant’s key *722ring.4 At the time of seizure, what appeared to be blood was found on the strand of hair and on the key ring. Agent Michael Malone of the FBI laboratory, an expert in the examination of hair and fibers, identified the hair as being that of the victim on the basis of twenty characteristics which matched the known hair of the victim. The amounts of blood on both the key ring and the hair were too small for complete analysis. The blood on the key ring was identified as human blood but could not be typed. The blood on the hair could not be otherwise identified. Both blood samples were entirely consumed in testing.

The defendant moved to strike the hair and key ring exhibits and the testimony relating thereto on the grounds that there had been material alteration in the exhibits from the time of seizure and that the consumption of the blood sample during testing was prejudicial to the defendant because it deprived him of an opportunity to defeat the inference that the hair was deposited on the key ring at the time of Michael Aranow’s death.

A

ALTERATION OF EVIDENCE

When proffered evidence is challenged on the ground of material alteration, the trial court must satisfy itself in reasonable probability that the substance has not been changed in important respects. The trial court, in making its determination, must consider the nature of the article, the circumstances surrounding its preservation and custody and the likelihood of intermeddlers tampering with it. In the absence of a clear abuse of discretion the ruling of the trial court admitting the evidence must stand. State v. Piskorski, 177 Conn. 677, 697, 419 A.2d 866, cert. denied, 444 U.S. 935, 100 S. Ct. 283, 62 L. Ed. 2d 194 (1979).

*723The defendant claims that the hair which was received by Malone at the FBI laboratory was changed in that it was broken at the proximal end, that is, the side near the scalp. Malone, a hair and fiber expert, testified that he received the hair in a sealed package which contained a key ring and set of keys wrapped in a piece of paper. He removed the items from the package and upon examination noted that a hair fragment was embedded in encrusted blood on a key ring.5 Despite its broken condition, Malone was able to test the hair and to identify twenty matching characteristics between the hair fragment and the known hair of the victim. In the absence of a showing that the broken condition of the hair sample would have destroyed or distorted its use for identification purposes, there was no basis for its exclusion as evidence.

B

CONSUMPTION OF BLOOD SAMPLES BY TESTING

The defendant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion to strike evidence relating to blood found on the key ring and hair. His claim is that the test which culminated in establishing the substance as blood also consumed the entire substance discovered and in the process not only deprived the defendant of *724the opportunity of presenting evidence6 on his own behalf but by introducing the results of the tests denied him a fair trial.

A fair trial is implicit in the term “due process of law.” “The requirements of due process are met in the trial of a person accused of crime if he has been given the benefit of a fair and impartial trial in accordance with the settled course of judicial proceedings in this state.” Wojculewicz v. Cummings, 145 Conn. 11, 19, 138 A.2d 512, cert. denied, 356 U.S. 969, 78 S. Ct. 1010, 2 L. Ed. 2d 1075 (1958). Whether the defendant, under the facts of the present case, has been deprived of his right depends upon the materiality of the missing evidence, the likelihood of mistaken interpretation of it by witnesses or the jury, the reason for its nonavailability to the defense and the prejudice to the defendant caused by the unavailability of the evidence. State v. Hamele, 188 Conn. 372, 381, 449 A.2d 1020 (1982); State v. Harden, 175 Conn. 315, 327, 398 A.2d 1169 (1978).

“The state is under an affirmative duty to disclose to a defendant any evidence that is favorable to him and material to his guilt or innocence. [Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 83 S. Ct. 1194, 10 L. Ed. 2d 215 (1963)]. The duty to disclose includes a duty to preserve evidence prior to trial. ... In order to show a violation of the constitutional right set forth in Brady, a defendant must demonstrate, to the extent possible under the circumstances, that the evidence is both favorable and material to an element of his defense .... The scope of the required showing of favorableness is gauged against what it would be possible to show under the circumstances. . . .

*725“Thus, where evidence sought to be disclosed has been functionally destroyed, but was subjected to scientific testing by the state prior to its destruction, a defendant must show that a retest would have been possible and must challenge the state’s test results, either by attacking the manner in which the test was conducted or by other evidence. ... On the other hand, if the state has not tested an item of evidence before its loss or destruction, and no other facts indicate that test results might have proved unfavorable to the defendant, little more is required than a showing that the test could have been performed and results obtained which, in the context of the defendant’s version of the facts, would prove exculpatory. . . . If a due process violation is established, the trial court must take whatever action is reasonably necessary to prevent prejudice to the defendant.” (Citations omitted.) State v. Kersting, 50 Or. App. 461, 623 P.2d 1095, 1103-1104 (1981).7

That the blood samples tested by the state were material is beyond dispute. The fact that a fragment of the victim's hair was found embedded in human blood on the defendant’s key ring was highly inculpatory. The defendant does not question the results of the state’s test, namely, that the substance on the key ring was human blood and the substance on the hair was blood. Nor does he contend that the destruction was deliberate. United States v. Beltempo, 675 F.2d 472, 479 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 457 U.S. 1135, 102 S. Ct. 2963, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1353 (1982). His chief complaint is that if he had had an opportunity to test the samples he might have been able to establish that the blood on the key *726ring and the hair was not the blood of the deceased and that such evidence would have defeated the inference that the hair was deposited at the time of the decedent’s death. The rationale for this theory was that the defendant and the decedent were close friends who spent much time together and that both were medical students and as such were exposed to clinical blood. The difficulty with the defendant’s claim is that it is unsupported. The defendant offered no evidence nor made any offer of proof that the amounts of blood on the key ring and the hair were sufficient, if properly tested, to establish blood type. In the absence of such evidence or offer the defendant’s claim was speculative. Furthermore, the defendant does not challenge the state’s assertion that the testing of the samples necessarily consumed each sample. In the circumstances we cannot conclude that the defendant has been denied a fair trial.

IV

Evidence of Prior Unrelated Offense

While the defendant was at the New Hartford town hall to give a statement to the troopers investigating the homicide, he was asked by Trooper Terry whether in the course of the previous evening he or the victim had consumed any alcohol or drug of any kind. Over the objection of the defendant, Terry testified that the defendant had responded by saying that he and the victim “had smoked some marijuana on the way down from New York.” Thereafter, at the defendant’s request, the court gave an instruction to the jury cautioning them that, if they believed this testimony they were not to consider it as bearing adversely on the defendant’s character and should not be prejudiced against the defendant by reason of it; rather, it could be considered by them only to the extent they believed it to be relevant to the issues in the case. The defendant took no exception to the cautionary instruction.

*727The defendant told part of his story to a number of people. The first person the defendant saw when he came down from the mountain on the morning of July 30,1978, the day after the murder, was Frank Jones. Jones, on noting the defendant’s apparently drugged or intoxicated state asked the defendant whether he had been on drugs or drinking to which the defendant responded that he thought they (he and the victim) had “had a few beers.” Later that morning the defendant told Trooper Terry that, on the trip from New York to New Hartford the night before, he and the deceased had smoked marijuana but “no hard stuff.”

Although these two accounts were not necessarily contradictory in that the response to Jones referred to what the defendant and the victim were doing on Jones’ Mountain whereas the statement to Trooper Terry referred to what had transpired during the trip to New Hartford, their significance is more readily apparent when viewed in context. The what, the when, the where and the how of a sequence leading up to an event may sometimes reveal the who and the why.

A spectacular incident such as a murder is not merely a snapshot of an event fixed in time. To be understood it must be viewed as part of a sequence both before and after its occurrence. The events leading up to the brutal assault on Jones’ Mountain help to place the ultimate crime in its proper setting. Since the defendant was at the very least a supporting actor in these events his description of what occurred assists the trier in defining his role. Since, by his own account, the defendant was the last known person to have seen the victim alive and since he and the deceased had been together for a considerable period of time before the murder, the defendant’s story takes on added significance. Upon careful analysis the account may assist in determining whether the defendant was a feature actor in the murder drama or merely a bit player.

*728The murder was brutal. The victim had been subjected to numerous stab wounds and had been bitten on his shoulder blade. The murder appeared to have been perpetrated by someone who was mentally or emotionally agitated probably while under the influence of mind altering drugs. Jones noted that the defendant appeared to be under the influence of drugs or alcohol. Trooper Bieluch, who observed the defendant a few hours later, noticed that he appeared to be under an altered state of consciousness, apparently drug related. In context the defendant’s statement to Jones can be regarded as a cover-up. His later admission to Trooper Terry that he had smoked marijuana but no hard stuff on the trip from New York might also suggest that he was attempting to cover up the fact that he may have ingested more than a few beers on the mountain.

Evidence of other misconduct, although ordinarily not admissible to prove the bad character of the accused may be allowed for the purpose of proving, inter alia, such things as intent, motive, identity, malice or a system of criminal activity. State v. Williams, 190 Conn. 104, 107-108, 459 A.2d 510 (1983). That such evidence tends to prove the commission of other crimes by the accused does not render it inadmissible if it is otherwise relevant and material. State v. Ibraimov, 187 Conn. 348, 352, 446 A.2d 382 (1982). “Where such evidence is offered in proof of an issue in the case, and not merely to show an evil disposition on the part of the accused, the trial court must still consider whether its prejudicial tendency outweighs its probative value before ruling upon its admissibility.” Id. Since the admission of such evidence involves judicial discretion our review is limited to whether this ruling exceeded the latitude accorded to the exercise of such discretion. Id. The bounds of discretion were not exceeded in this respect.

*729Y

Extreme Emotional Disturbance

At the request of the state and over the objections of the defendant the trial court charged the jury on the lesser included offense of manslaughter in the first degree predicated on the defendant’s having committed the homicide under circumstances showing extreme emotional disturbance. General Statutes § 53a-55 (a) (2).8 The grounds of the defendant’s objection are that there was an insufficient evidential basis for the submission of this crime to the jury and that the illustration given to the jury for their consideration of this case was legally inappropriate.

At the outset the state suggests that we need not review this assignment because the jury returned a general verdict. The state argues that the trial court submitted the manslaughter issue to the jury not only under the extreme emotional disturbance subsection but also under subsection (a) (1) which covers situations in which an accused “[w]ith intent to cause serious physical injury to another person . . . causes the death of such person,” that there was sufficient evidence to convict under this subsection, that the defendant could have requested the court to inquire of the jury under which subsection they were basing their verdict; State v. Carter, 189 Conn. 611, 629, 458 A.2d 369 (1983); and that by failing to do so the defendant has failed to pre*730sent this court with an adequate record to review his claim; see Kaplan v. Kaplan, 186 Conn. 387, 388 n.1, 441 A.2d 629 (1982); and therefore we should not speculate on which subsection the jury relied.

In State v. Marino, 190 Conn. 639, 650-51, 462 A.2d 1021 (1983) we stated, “[w]here a person may have been convicted under more than one statutory alternative, the judgment cannot be supported unless the evidence was sufficient to establish guilt under each statutory provision which the trier may have relied upon.” Since Marino involved an indictment for murder under which a three judge panel convicted the defendant of manslaughter in the first degree with a firearm, General Statutes § 53a-55a,9 without specifying under which subsection of General Statutes § 53a-55 (the statute involved in this case) the defendant was found to have committed the manslaughter, the ruling in Marino is applicable here. See State v. Reid, 193 Conn. 646, 480 A.2d 463 (1984). We must therefore review the defendant’s claim about the sufficiency of the evidence with regard to extreme emotional disturbance.

Extreme emotional disturbance is not an element of the crime of murder. State v. Elliott, 177 Conn. 1, 5, 411 A.2d 3 (1979); People v. Patterson, 39 N.Y.2d 288, 383 N.Y.S.2d 573, 347 N.E.2d 898 (1976). It is, how*731ever, a mitigating circumstance which will reduce the crime of murder to manslaughter. State v. Elliott, supra, 9. In an indictment for murder, under General Statutes § 53a-54a, the defendant may raise extreme emotional disturbance as an affirmative defense,10 in which case the burden is on the defendant to establish this defense by a preponderance of the evidence. General Statutes § 53a-12 (b); State v. Zdanis, 182 Conn. 388, 390, 438 A.2d 696 (1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1003, 101 S. Ct. 1715, 68 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1981); State v. Elliott, supra, 6.

Under General Statutes § 53a-55 (a) (2) 11 manslaughter predicated on the mitigating circumstance of extreme emotional disturbance is a lesser included offense of murder. See State v. Rodriguez, 180 Conn. 382, 404, 429 A.2d 919 (1980). Under § 53a-45 (c) the “jury before which any person indicted for murder is tried may find him guilty of homicide in a lesser degree than that charged.” It follows that in any murder prosecution the issue of the lesser included offense of manslaughter under § 53a-55 (a) (2) may be raised either by the defendant by way of an affirmative defense or by the state where it is warranted by the evidence. Thus although in a given homicide the state may, in good faith and where circumstances reasonably warrant, assume that an accused acted with the most culpable state of mind, where the evidence is reasonably susceptible of another conclusion the jury should not be bound by that assumption and forced by its verdict to choose only between the offense with the most culp*732able state of mind and acquittal. Id. Given the existence of the requisite mitigating circumstance and compliance with the lesser included offense conditions set out in State v. Whistnant, 179 Conn. 576, 588, 427 A.2d 414 (1980), failure to give a requested instruction on the lesser included manslaughter offense would limit the jury’s function of determining the degree of homicide contrary to § 53a-45 (c). In enacting this manslaughter statute the legislature intended to allow the finder of fact the discretionary power to mitigate the penalty of murder when presented with a situation which, under the circumstances, appears to them to have caused an understandable weakness in one of their fellows. People v. Casassa, 49 N.Y.2d 668, 680, 427 N.Y.S.2d 769, 404 N.E.2d 1310, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 842, 101 S. Ct. 122, 66 L. Ed. 2d 50 (1980).12 The fact that the defendant may rely on the mitigating circumstance as an affirmative defense to murder does not mean that by his contrary election he may also circumscribe the homicide offenses which the jury may consider.

The evidence, necessarily circumstantial; State v. Rodriguez, supra; is sufficient to support a conviction of manslaughter in the first degree under circumstances of extreme emotional disturbance. The facts that the victim’s body contained more than 100 stab wounds and a bite mark made by the defendant, that the defendant had not had much sleep during the time preceding the killing, that on the morning of the killing he was so clearly under the influence of some drug or alcohol, that persons who had never seen him before came to that conclusion, and that he appeared to be in a tense and agitated state would tend to show that *733the defendant was motivated by more than just a desire to take life. Taking all of these facts into account the jury would have been justified in concluding that the defendant committed the homicide at a time when he was extremely emotionally disturbed.

A

PUTATIVE “HEAT OF PASSION” ILLUSTRATION

In discussing extreme emotional disturbance the trial court commented: “The classic example of such cases are [sic] when the husband returns home to find his wife making love to a stranger and then kills one or both of them. I recall nothing in the events of this nature but remember, it is your recollection that counts, not mine.” The defendant argues that the example of a “hot-blood” killing is not an appropriate example of an extreme emotional disturbance as defined by Connecticut law. We do not completely agree.

To find that a homicide has been committed under circumstances of extreme emotional disturbance the trier of fact must find that: (a) the emotional disturbance is not a mental disease or defect that rises to the level of insanity as defined by the penal code; (b) the defendant was exposed to an extremely unusual and overwhelming state, that is, not mere annoyance or unhappiness; and (c) the defendant had an extreme emotional reaction to it, as a result of which there was a loss of self-control, and reason was overborne by extreme intense feeling, such as passion, anger, distress, grief, excessive agitation or other similar emotions. State v. Zdanis, 182 Conn. 388, 390-91, 438 A.2d 696 (1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1003, 101 S. Ct. 1715, 68 L. Ed. 2d 207 (1981). Although a homicide influenced by an extreme emotional disturbance is not one which is necessarily committed in the “hot blood” state but rather can be one brought about by a significant mental trauma that caused the defendant to brood for a *734long period of time and then react violently, seemingly without provocation; State v. Elliott, 177 Conn. 1, 7-8, 411 A.2d 3 (1979); nothing that we said in Elliott would preclude a trier from finding a hot blood homicide to have occurred under extreme emotional disturbance. As we pointed out in Elliott, supra, 10, a charge that limits extreme emotional disturbance to the “hot blood” stage is erroneous because it is too narrow. It thus precludes a trier from convicting a defendant of the lesser degree of homicide. If despite or because of the “hot blood” charge a defendant is convicted of manslaughter instead of murder he cannot be heard to complain.

B

PRESUMED INTENT

The defendant claims that the effect of the trial court’s instruction that “[e]very person is presumed to intend the natural and necessary consequences of his or her acts” was either to create a conclusive presumption of intent under certain circumstances or to shift to the defendant the burden of persuasion and that in either event this instruction denied to the defendant a fair trial. Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 524, 99 S. Ct. 2450, 61 L. Ed. 2d 39 (1979). The charge13 in this case, when examined in context, is no different from similar charges which we have examined in the *735past. In those cases we have found no basis for reversible error when the trial court defined the presumption in permissive terms and left it to the jury to decide whether the state had proven intent beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Miller, 186 Conn. 654, 668, 443 A.2d 906 (1982) (and cases cited therein). Upon examination of the challenged instruction we find no basis for reaching a different result in the present case.

VI

Juror Misconduct

The defendant moved for a new trial on a number of grounds, two of which he has pressed on appeal. These are two instances of juror misconduct, one involving the use of a dictionary definition of “inference,” the other concerning the use of nonevidential material in conducting an experiment during deliberations. After a hearing the trial court denied the motion on both grounds. We find no error.

A motion for a new trial is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial court and is not to be granted except on substantial grounds. Bernier v. National Fence Co., 176 Conn. 622, 628, 410 A.2d 1007 (1979). If the motion is based on juror misconduct “[t]he rule extracted from the cases seems to be, that however improper such conduct may have been, yet if it does *736not appear that it was occasioned by the prevailing party, or anyone in his behalf; if it [does] not indicate any improper bias upon the juror’s mind, and the court cannot see, that it either had, or might have had, an effect unfavorable to the party moving for a new trial; the verdict ought not to be set aside.” Pettibone v. Phelps, 13 Conn. 445, 450 (1840); State v. Watkins, 9 Conn. 46, 51 (1831).

Juror misconduct which results in substantial prejudice to the defendant is not to be tolerated. But not every irregularity in a juror’s conduct compels reversal. “The dereliction must be such as to deprive the defendant of the continued, objective and disinterested judgment of the juror, thereby foreclosing the accused’s right to a fair trial.” Nelson v. United States, 378 A.2d 657, 660 (D.C. 1977); United States v. Fay, 238 F. Sup. 1005, 1007 (S.D.N.Y. 1965). Consideration of extrinsic evidence is presumptively prejudicial because it implicates the defendant’s constitutional right to a fair trial before an impartial jury. State v. McCall, 187 Conn. 73, 80, 444 A.2d 896 (1982). A presumption of prejudice may also arise in cases involving communications between a juror and third persons. Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 74 S. Ct. 450, 98 L. Ed. 654 (1954) (attempted jury tampering); Aillon v. State, 168 Conn. 541, 547-48, 363 A.2d 49 (1975) (ex parte communication between judge and juror). But unless the nature of the misconduct on its face implicates his constitutional rights the burden is on the appellant to show that the error of the trial court is harmful. Aillon v. State, supra, 547; State v. L ’Heureux, 166 Conn. 312, 323, 348 A.2d 578 (1974).

A

USE OF DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF “INFERENCE”

The trial court found that during the deliberations Juror Streib read a definition of the word “inference” *737which he had copied from a Funk & Wagnall dictionary. The definition as read to the jury is as follows: “Item 1, that which is inferred; a deduction or conclusion; Two, the act or process of inferring; Three, loosely a conjecture . . . ; Four, is the comprehensive term for the formal drawing of conclusions; it includes both induction and deduction. Deduction is the inferring of a universal or general rule from instances. Deduction is the reverse process of drawing a conclusion as to a particular instance from general premises.” The definition particularly objected to is “loosely, a conjecture.”

To begin with, the definition of words in our standard dictionaries is taken as a matter of common knowledge which the jury is supposed to possess. Dulaney v. Burns, 218 Ala. 493, 119 So. 21 (1928). Therefore, the fact that one juror tells another juror what the other juror is supposed to know does not qualify to raise a presumption of prejudice. Prejudice must be demonstrated. Shultz v. State, 417 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. App. 1981). In this case the claim of prejudice is that the jury might have believed that in drawing inferences they were entitled to rely on guess, surmise or conjecture. The trial court, pointing out that its charge to the jury was lengthy and complete on the word “inference” and that the jury asked that the part of the charge involving circumstantial evidence and inference be repeated, could find no such prejudice and neither can we. Not only did the court give the jury the customary instruction that they must accept the law from the court but during the discussion of inferences cautioned that “[t]he inference you draw, however, must not be a guess or surmise upon the evidence but must be from a fact which the evidence has established. Inferences that you may draw from these established facts must be logical and reasonable and well-founded upon the facts which have [been] proven in the trial of the case.” In the absence of a clear indication to the contrary, we must *738presume that the jury followed this instruction. State v. Griffin, 175 Conn. 155, 160, 397 A.2d 89 (1978).

We hasten to add that the fact that we have found no error in this case does not mean that a trial judge is authorized to furnish a dictionary to a jury upon their request. There may be situations where furnishing a dictionary to a jury may create a presumption of prejudice arising out of injecting unauthorized informational and definitional material into the jury instructions; State v. Holmes, 17 Ore. App. 464, 522 P.2d 900 (1974); but that is not this case.

B

EXPERIMENT BY JURORS IN DELIBERATION ROOM

The defendant claims that it was prejudicial for Juror Turner surreptitiously to bring into the jury room a belt and shirt, not introduced into evidence as exhibits, and to utilize these articles in an experiment in which one juror tried to lift another juror lying prone on the floor and carry him five or six feet. The defendant maintains that the introduction of articles not admitted into evidence and their use in conducting an experiment denied the defendant his right to test the evidence or to question the premises, the methods or the results of the experiment and that such actions of the jury constitute a denial of the defendant’s rights of confrontation, of counsel and of cross-examination and also denied him a fair trial.

After hearing the evidence on the defendant’s motion, the trial court found that the jury conducted the experiment to test the state’s claim that a single person such as the defendant could have lifted the victim and carried him several feet, and that the experiment was suggested by the activities of the defendant’s counsel and his investigator in reenacting part of the same experiment in the courtroom before the jury. The *739court further found that the items which were brought into the jury deliberating room, a shirt and a belt, were common everyday items which practically every male wears, and that the experiment was conducted in a manner that has reasonably been consistent with the testimony presented to the jury and merely tested the credibility of that testimony. The trial court concluded that the state had proved beyond a reasonable doubt that any misconduct of the jury in this regard was harmless and without prejudice to the defendant. We agree.

“In the constitutional sense, trial by jury in a criminal case necessarily implies at the very least that the ‘evidence developed’ against a defendant shall come from the witness stand in a public courtroom where there is full judicial protection of the defendant’s right of confrontation, of cross-examination, and of counsel.” Turner v. Louisiana, 379 U.S. 466, 472-73, 85 S. Ct. 546, 13 L. Ed. 2d 424 (1965). “The problems presented by an experiment conducted by jurors on their own defy precise, systematic analysis. A juror is expected to draw upon his general knowledge and experience in deciding the case, and he is encouraged to participate in full and robust debate and deliberations with his fellows in reaching a verdict. However, he should not consider facts relating to the case unless introduced at trial under constitutional and legal safeguards .... Accordingly, when a juror passes beyond the record evidence in reaching a decision, whether a new trial will be granted depends upon the magnitude of the juror’s deviation from his proper role, the degree to which the accused was deprived of the benefits of the constitutional and statutory safeguards, and the likelihood that the impropriety influenced the jury’s verdict. All of these elements must be weighed in determining whether there is a reasonable possibility that the *740defendant’s right to a fair trial has been prejudiced.” State v. Graham, 422 So. 2d 123, 132 (La. 1982).

That it was inappropriate for Juror Turner to bring the shirt and belt into the deliberating room for experimental purposes is beyond dispute. But in themselves neither item proved anything. Moreover, the experiment was not designed to test whether the victim’s body had in fact been moved. It was apparent from an examination of the area that there was a primary and secondary crime scene at the lookout and that the body had been lifted five and one-half to six feet from the primary to the secondary scene. Thus the question posed to the jury by the defendant’s challenge to the state’s theory about how the crime had been committed was whether it was likely that the defendant could have carried the victim from one place to the other because the victim outweighed him by some fifteen pounds. In the experiment the juror who played the role of the victim outweighed the lifting juror by some nineteen pounds. Thus the situations were comparable. Indeed, the defendant does not challenge the reliability of the experiment for the limited purpose for which it was used. Although the victim was not wearing a belt, the reason a belt was used by the jury can be explained by the fact that when the defendant’s attorney had his investigator play the role of the victim in a partial demonstration before the jury, the investigator was wearing a belt. Since the jury were well aware not only of the limited purpose of the experiment but also of the fact that the belt was being used to avoid the possibility of ripping the pants of the victim-juror the possibility that the jury could have been influenced by the use of a belt in the experiment is remote. Nor does the defendant contend otherwise. In the circumstances, the trial court’s finding that the jury experiment was not *741prejudicial to the defendant not being clearly erroneous, its denial of the defendant’s motion for a new trial on the ground stated cannot be disturbed.

The cases cited by the defendant are distinguishable. With one possible exception which we discuss infra they all have one thing in common, namely, the unauthorized introduction into the deliberating process of a new evidential fact. Bulger v. McClay, 575 F.2d 407 (2d Cir. 1978) (unauthorized discovery of defendant’s address which was located at some distance from the crime scene and therefore tended to discredit his excuse for being at a particular bus stop near the scene of the crime); Durr v. Cook, 442 F. Sup. 487 (W.D. La. 1977) (jury foreman reenacted the homicide outside of the jury room and reported the results to his fellow jurors); People v. Holmes, 69 Ill. 2d 507, 372 N.E.2d 656 (1978) (several members of jury made independent investigation of a type of shoe claimed to be worn by the assailant); People v. Brown, 48 N.Y.2d 388, 423 N.Y.S. 2d 461, 399 N.E.2d 51 (1979) (juror conducted independent test of visibility, using motor vehicle different from that described in the evidence and reported results to the jury); People v. Crimmins, 26 N.Y.2d 319, 310 N.Y.S. 2d 300, 258 N.E.2d 708 (1970) (jury made unauthorized visit to the neighborhood of the crime scene).

In United States v. Beach, 296 F.2d 153 (4th Cir. 1961), a perjury case, the defendant had testified before the grand jury that he did not know that certain men were using a certain room in a certain home, that he had not seen one of the men in the home and that he had not heard certain machinery in the home. The men were evidently connected with a numbers operation and had put in their rented room certain adding machines at which they worked for several hours daily. After the jury retired to consider their verdict, they sent back a message requesting the court to send them an elec*742trie drop cord. The defense attorney was then absent from the courtroom. The court had an electric drop cord delivered to the jury and so advised the defense counsel on his return to the courtroom. The defense counsel objected on the ground that the jury obviously wanted the cord in order to test the amount of noise made by the running of the adding machines. The machines had been introduced in evidence and sent to the jury in the jury room. However, when being operated as part of the numbers operation each machine sat on a foam rubber pad two inches thick. The padding had been removed from the machines when the machines were introduced into evidence and was separately introduced. Because of the possibility that the jury might conduct the experiment without the padding and, therefore, under conditions dissimilar to the circumstances which existed where the numbers operation was being carried on, the fourth circuit reversed. Although there are some similarities between Beach and the present case, the significance of the experiment in Beach to the issues in the case and the greater risk of prejudice involved in that case also distinguishes it from the case at bar.

Even were we to conclude that there was a reasonable possibility of prejudice from the use of the belt in the experiment, the other circumstantial evidence so overwhelmingly points to the defendant’s guilt of manslaughter in the first degree that the trial court was correct in concluding that any error created by juror misconduct was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is no error.

In this opinion the other judges concurred.

Peters, C. J.

The principal issue in this appeal is whether incriminating oral statements that the defendant made to the police during a custodial interrogation should have been suppressed by virtue of the right to counsel guaranteed by article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution. In our original decision in this case, we concluded that the statements were inadmissible under the fifth and fourteenth amendments to the United States constitution. State v. Barrett, 197 Conn. *43950, 495 A.2d 1044 (1985). We declined to consider what state constitutional rights the defendant might have had because he had raised no such claim either in the trial court or before us. Id., 54 n.3. The United States Supreme Court concluded that we had misinterpreted the applicable precedents and held that the statements were admissible as a matter of federal constitutional law. Accordingly, it reversed our judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings not inconsistent with its opinion. Connecticut v. Barrett, 479 U.S. 523, 107 S. Ct. 828, 93 L. Ed. 2d 920 (1987). We now conclude that the trial court correctly admitted the defendant’s oral statements into evidence. There is therefore no error in the defendant’s conviction.

The defendant, William Barrett, was convicted, after a jury trial, of sexual assault in the first degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-70 (a), unlawful restraint in the first degree, in violation of General Statutes § 53a-95 (a), and possession of less than four ounces of a cannabis-type substance, in violation of General Statutes (Rev. to 1979) § 19-481 (c). The underlying facts are fully recounted in our earlier opinion. For present purposes, we note that the jury could reasonably have found that the defendant and another man sexually assaulted the victim after she had accepted an offer by the defendant to drive her to her sister’s home. The victim’s prompt report of the crime led the New Haven police to take the defendant into custody. The defendant was thereafter transferred to the Wal-lingford police for questioning.

The facts of the defendant’s custodial interrogation are not disputed. After being advised by the Walling-ford police of his constitutional rights, the defendant signed and dated an acknowledgment that he had received the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602,16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). When he was then asked to give a statement concern*440ing the assault, “[t]he defendant immediately replied that he would not give a written statement without his attorney present, although he was willing to answer questions orally. Without further inquiry, the police proceeded to interrogate him in the absence of counsel and to elicit an incriminating statement from him.” State v. Barrett, supra, 55. After discovering that a tape recorder used to preserve the oral statements had malfunctioned, the police interrogated the defendant for a second time. After being again advised of his Miranda rights by the police, the defendant reiterated his wish to have his lawyer present before giving a written statement, but again stated that he was willing to discuss the matter orally. When the interrogation ended, a police officer made a final request to have the defendant put his oral statements into writing, but he again refused to do so without an attorney.

The trial court ruled that the incriminating oral statements were admissible because the defendant had freely and intelligently waived his rights both to remain silent and to have counsel present. In so ruling, the trial court concluded that the defendant had been repeatedly informed of his rights, had understood them, had signed a standard waiver form, and had agreed to speak with the police. The trial court found that the defendant’s request for counsel before giving a written statement was evidence that he in fact understood his rights.

In the original appeal, we interpreted federal constitutional law to mandate a two step inquiry to determine whether the defendant’s oral statements were admissible. Smith v. Illinois, 469 U.S. 91, 105 S. Ct. 490, 83 L. Ed. 2d 488 (1984); Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477,101 S. Ct. 1880, 68 L. Ed. 2d 378, reh. denied, 452 U.S. 973,101 S. Ct. 3128, 69 L. Ed. 2d 984 (1981). “We must determine: (1) whether the defendant had in fact invoked his right to counsel; and (2) if so, whether he subsequently waived it.” State v. Barrett, *441supra, 54. We held that the defendant had, in effect, invoked his right to counsel and that his continuous interrogation by the police precluded a finding of waiver. Id., 57-58. Accordingly, because his incriminatory statements should have been suppressed, we ordered a new trial.

In reversing this judgment and remanding the case to us, the United States Supreme Court in Connecticut v. Barrett, supra, 832-33, determined that federal constitutional law permitted a distinction between the defendant’s willingness to make uncounseled oral statements and his disinclination to make a written statement in the absence of his attorney. While acknowledging that, in light of the defendant’s objection, a written statement obtained from the defendant would not have been admissible unless it met the strict waiver standards of Edwards v. Arizona, supra, the court concluded that no federal constitutional objective would be served by suppressing the oral statements in this case. “Miranda gives the defendant a right to choose between speech and silence, and Barrett chose to speak.” Connecticut v. Barrett, supra, 832. Further, the court saw no need for liberal construction of the defendant’s request for counsel. Because the defendant’s request, in its clear and plain meaning, was aimed solely at obtaining counsel prior to giving a written statement, the court held that a broad reading would “disregard the ordinary meaning” of the request. Id. The court rejected the argument that it should undertake a more expansive interpretation of the defendant’s verbally precise request in light of the defendant’s apparent failure fully to understand the constitutional implications of his effort to distinguish between oral and written statements. Instead, the court relied upon the unchallenged findings of the trial court to conclude that the defendant had fully understood his right to remain silent and his right to counsel. Id., 832-33.

*442On remand, the defendant claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress because: (1) his state constitutional right to consult with an attorney during custodial interrogation was violated; (2) the police did not obtain a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to remain silent; (3) his oral statements were given involuntarily; and (4) the state violated a specific court order in not disclosing all written summaries of his oral statements on a timely basis. We find no error.

I

Before we address the merits of the defendant’s state constitutional claim, we must first resolve the preliminary issue whether such a claim is reviewable at this stage in the proceedings. As the state properly concedes, this court has the inherent authority to interpret the state constitution in the context of specific cases. “We clearly have the power to construe the Connecticut constitution in accordance with our particular analysis of the specific right at issue.” State v. Kimbro, 197 Conn, 219, 234, 496 A.2d 498 (1985); see also State v. Jarzbek, 204 Conn. 683, 707-708, 529 A.2d 1245 (1987); State v. Scully, 195 Conn. 668, 674 n.11, 490 A.2d 984 (1985); State v. Couture, 194 Conn. 530, 564, 482 A.2d 300 (1984), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 1192, 105 S. Ct. 967, 83 L. Ed. 2d 971 (1985); State v. Cohane, 193 Conn. 474,498-99 n.19, 479 A.2d 763, cert. denied, 469 U.S. 990,105 S. Ct. 397, 83 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1984); Cologne v. Westfarms Associates, 192 Conn. 48, 57,469 A.2d 1201 (1984); Griswold Inn, Inc. v. State, 183 Conn. 552, 559 n.3, 441 A.2d 16 (1981); Fasulo v. Arafeh, 173 Conn. 473, 475, 378 A.2d 553 (1977); Horton v. Meskill, 172 Conn. 615, 641-42, 376 A.2d 359 (1977). The state nonetheless urges us to decline review for prudential reasons. Because of the defendant’s acknowledged failure to raise a state constitutional claim until the present remand from the United States Supreme Court; State v. Barrett, supra, 54 n.3; the state asserts that it *443“would be a travesty if this Court were to emasculate” established rules of appellate procedure by reviewing the state constitutional claim at this stage. We nonetheless conclude that review is appropriate in this case.

The basic rule governing the scope of appellate review is contained in Practice Book § 4185, which states that the Supreme Court “shall not be bound to consider a claim unless it was distinctly raised at trial or arose subsequent to the trial.” The phrase “shall not be bound” implies that this court may, if it wishes, address an issue not properly preserved at trial. Mickel v. New England Coal & Coke Co., 132 Conn. 671, 674, 47 A.2d 187 (1946). The rule embodied in § 4185 “serves the salutary purpose of alerting the trial court to possible errors while there is still opportunity to correct them.” State v. Simms, 170 Conn. 206, 212, 365 A.2d 821, cert. denied, 425 U.S. 954, 96 S. Ct. 1732, 48 L. Ed. 2d 199 (1976); see also State v. Hinckley, 198 Conn. 77, 81, 502 A.2d 388 (1985). We have therefore often declined on appeal to consider claims of error relating to trial practice unless appropriate steps were taken at the initial hearing to preserve the claim for review. State v. Young, 191 Conn. 636, 653, 469 A.2d 1189 (1983); State v. Johnson, 188 Conn. 515, 518A-19, 450 A.2d 361 (1982); State v. Nardini, 187 Conn. 513, 516-18, 447 A.2d 396 (1982). In the realm of constitutional adjudication, however, it is familiar learning that we may address unpreserved constitutional claims that fall within the “exceptional circumstances” doctrine of State v. Evans, 165 Conn. 61, 327 A.2d 576 (1973). Under Evans, an unpreserved claim may be reviewed where a new constitutional right not readily foreseeable has arisen between the time of trial and appeal or if the record adequately supports a claim that a litigant has clearly been deprived of a fundamental constitutional right and a fair trial. Id., 70.

*444This court has applied the Evans doctrine to a great variety of federal constitutional claims. See State v. Rouleau, 204 Conn. 240,243, 528 A.2d 343 (1987); State v. Robinson, 204 Conn. 207, 209-10, 527 A.2d 694 (1987); State v. Sinclair, 197 Conn. 574, 580,500 A.2d 539 (1985); State v. Torrence, 196 Conn. 430, 435, 493 A.2d 865 (1985); State v. Miller, 186 Conn. 654, 658, 443 A.2d 906 (1982); State v. Williams, 182 Conn. 262, 267, 438 A.2d 80 (1980). Despite our recognition that belated constitutional adjudication provides incentives for tactical jockeying by defense counsel and at times encounters the practical obstacle of an unfocused trial court record, we have tempered the rigors of the rule of § 4185 to accommodate federal constitutional requirements for a fair trial. State v. Evans, supra, 68-71; see also State v. Jones, 193 Conn. 70, 74, 475 A.2d 1087 (1984); State v. Darwin, 155 Conn. 124,142, 230 A.2d 573 (1967), rev’d on other grounds, 391 U.S. 346, 88 S. Ct. 1488, 20 L. Ed. 2d 630 (1968). We can perceive no reason of principle to devise a different rule of procedure for constitutional rights that have their origin in the state, constitution.

In the circumstances of this case, review of the defendant’s state constitutional claims falls within the established parameters of State v. Evans, supra. Con-cededly, we have before us transcripts and exhibits that provide a trial record affording us a sufficient basis for addressing the defendant’s claim. Because this court has not yet addressed the precise state constitutional question that the defendant asks us to resolve, we conclude that the defendant’s claim falls outside the realm of those “well-known or long-established” constitutional rights that counsel should be required to have raised at the trial level. Id., 68. State constitutional law is only now emerging from the shadow of its federal counterpart. It is therefore understandable that parties may not engage in elaborate discussion and anal*445ysis of untested and novel state constitutional theories in trial court proceedings where defense counsel has other more immediately accessible and tangible targets to pursue. “The reality is that time for original analysis is scarce, particularly in the ordinary criminal case; and particularly at the trial level, lawyers and courts often depend on the shorthand of case citations in preference to scrutinizing statutes and constitutional principles.” State v. Kennedy, 295 Or. 260, 266, 666 P.2d 1316 (1983); see also E. Peters, “State Constitutional Law: Federalism in the Common Law Tradition,” 84 Mich. L. Rev. 583, 589-92 (1986). We therefore conclude that the defendant’s claim under article first, § 8, is reviewable at this juncture, despite his failure to raise the claim during the trial or on the original appeal.

Our decision today to review a state constitutional claim raised for the first time on remand from the United States Supreme Court is consistent with authority elsewhere. The Supreme Court of South Dakota has held that “this court has the inherent power on remand to hear an issue of such importance to the citizens of this state.” State v. Opperman, 247 N.W.2d 673, 675 n.6 (S.D. 1976). The history of State v. Opperman resembles that of the instant case. In the initial appeal, the state supreme court, "without mentioning the state constitution, held that a warrantless inventory search was unreasonable under the fourth amendment to the United States constitution. State v. Opperman, 89 S.D. 25, 37, 228 N.W.2d 152 (1975) (Opperman I). The United States Supreme Court reversed the judgment and remanded for further proceedings. South Dakota v. Opperman, 428 U.S. 364, 96 S. Ct. 3092, 49 L. Ed. 2d 1000 (1976). On remand, the state supreme court affirmed its original decision, as a matter of state constitutional law, even though the defendant had not pur*446sued such a claim in his initial appeal.1 State v. Opperman, 247 N.W.2d 673,675 (S.D. 1976) (Opperman II). Similarly, the Washington Supreme Court, in State v. Chrisman, 94 Wash. 2d 711, 619 P.2d 971 (1980) (Chrisman I), in its first decision, ruled that physical evidence seized in a warrantless search of the defendant’s dormitory room should be suppressed on constitutional grounds but did not expressly refer to the state constitution. After reversal and remand by the United States Supreme Court; Washington v. Chrisman, 455 U.S. 1, 102 S. Ct. 812, 70 L. Ed. 2d 778 (1982); the court held that the state constitution afforded broader protection than its federal counterpart. State v. Chrisman, 100 Wash. 2d 814, 676 P.2d 419 (1984) (Chrisman II). The New York Court of Appeals has also recently affirmed, on remand, its inherent power to interpret the state constitution to order the suppression of items that the United States Supreme Court had deemed admissible as a matter of federal constitutional law. New York v. P. J. Video, Inc., 475 U.S. 868, 106 S. Ct. 1610, 89 L. Ed. 2d 871 (1986); People v. P. J. Video, Inc., 68 N.Y.2d 296, 501 N.E.2d 556, 508 N.Y.S.2d 907 (1986) (P. J. Video, Inc. II), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 1091,107 S. Ct. 1301, 94 L. Ed. 2d 156 (1987); People v. P. J. Video, Inc., 65 N.Y.2d 566, 483 N.E.2d 1120, 493 N.Y.S.2d 988 (1985) (P. J. Video, Inc. I). Comparable rulings can be found in other jurisdictions as well. See Commonwealth v. Upton, 394 Mass. 363, 476 N.E.2d 548 (1985); State v. Jackson, 672 P.2d 255 (Mont. 1983); State v. Kennedy, supra.

II

We turn now to the merits of the defendant’s claim of a constitutional infirmity, under the state constitu*447tion, in the incriminatory statements that he made to the police. The defendant maintains that the due process clause contained in article first, § 8, of our state constitution requires a more expansive interpretation of the defendant’s invocation of his right to counsel than the Supreme Court of the United States found to be warranted as a matter of federal constitutional law. Connecticut v. Barrett, supra, 832. In the circumstances of this case, we are unpersuaded.

Article first, § 8, provides in pertinent part: “No person shall be compelled to give evidence against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law . . . . ” We have held that the warnings enunciated by Miranda v. Arizona, supra, originally made applicable in state prosecutions only because of the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment to the United States constitution, are independently required under the due process clause of article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution. State v. Chung, 202 Conn. 39, 45 n.7, 519 A.2d 1175 (1987); State v. Simms, 201 Conn. 395, 411 n.12, 518 A.2d 35 (1986); State v. Burge, 195 Conn. 232,246 n.15, 487 A.2d 532 (1985); State v. Ferrell, 191 Conn. 37, 40-41, 463 A.2d 573 (1983); State v. Falby, 187 Conn. 6,11 and n.1, 444 A.2d 213 (1982). “The warnings represent the belief, deep-seated in the Anglo-American legal tradition, that a person accused of a crime may be convicted only if exacting measures have been taken to assure that the accused has been treated with the most scrupulous fairness by agents of the government.” State v. Ferrell, supra. By informing a person held in custody of the right to consult with an attorney prior to and during police interrogation, the warnings required by article first, § 8, significantly enhance that person’s opportunity to make a knowing, intelligent and voluntary decision whether to speak or remain silent. Id. The Miranda warnings reflect the “perception that *448the lawyer occupies a critical position in our legal system because of his [or her] unique ability to protect the [due process] rights of a client undergoing custodial interrogation.” Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 719, 99 S. Ct. 2560, 61 L. Ed. 2d 197, reh. denied, 444 U.S. 887, 100 S. Ct. 186, 62 L. Ed. 2d 121 (1979).2

In the absence of a subsequent waiver,3 an accused who invokes his right to counsel in accordance with Miranda warnings may not be further interrogated until he has been able to secure the advice of an attorney. State v. Ferrell, supra, 44 n.10; State v. Acquin, 187 Conn. 647, 667, 448 A.2d 163 (1982), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1229, 103 S. Ct. 3570, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1411 (1983). A necessary predicate to the injunction against further interrogation is that the defendant did indeed invoke his right to counsel. If the defendant’s request is equivocal, it is the obligation of the police to clarify the defendant’s request. State v. Acquin, supra, 667-68.

The difficulty in this case is what implication to draw from the defendant’s unequivocal but limited invocation of his right to counsel. The defendant made it clear that he would make no written statement in the absence of counsel, and the police in fact did not obtain such a statement from him. Cf. State v. Shifflett, 199 Conn. 718, 737-38, 508 A.2d 748 (1986). The defendant was equally explicit about his willingness to make oral state*449ments prior to consultation with an attorney. This expressed willingness to speak may well have had its origins in a misperception about the risk associated with incriminatory oral communications. The record reveals, however, that the police did nothing to foster such a misperception. The defendant could not have overlooked the presence of the police tape recorder, especially when its initial malfunction led the police, after renewed Miranda warnings, to elicit from the defendant a renewal of his incriminatory oral statements. In these circumstances, we conclude that the defendant’s limited request for counsel did not encompass the oral statements that he now seeks to suppress. By his election to make such oral statements in the absence of counsel, the defendant surrendered the rights afforded to him under article first, § 8.

Ill

The defendant next claims that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress his incriminatory oral statements because the police failed to obtain a knowing and intelligent waiver of his right to remain silent and because the statements were made involuntarily.4 We are unpersuaded.

A

The state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights, including his right to remain silent. State v. Boscarino, 204 Conn. 714, 743, 529 A.2d 1260 (1987); State v. Hernandez, 204 Conn. 377, 395, 528 A.2d 794 (1987); State v. Chung, 202 Conn. 39, 48, 519 A.2d 1175 (1987); State v. Toste, 198 Conn. 573, 579-80, 504 A.2d 1036 (1986). *450A valid waiver is defined, in accordance with the well known test of Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S. Ct. 1019, 82 L. Ed. 1461 (1938), as the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right. State v. Shockley, 188 Conn. 697, 706, 453 A.2d 441 (1982); State v. Reed, 174 Conn. 287, 293, 386 A.2d 243 (1978). Although mere silence of the accused is not enough to establish waiver; State v. Wilson, 183 Conn. 280, 284, 439 A.2d 330 (1981); the record need not show a specific expression of relinquishment of rights. State v. Pecoraro, 198 Conn. 203, 208, 502 A.2d 396 (1985). Instead, a waiver may be “inferred from the actions and words of the person interrogated”; North Carolina v. Butler, 441 U.S. 369, 373, 99 S. Ct. 1755, 60 L. Ed. 2d 286 (1979); and from his “course of conduct.” State v. Wilson, supra, 285.

In this case, the defendant asserts that his decision to speak with the police, viewed in the context of his adamant refusal to commit anything to writing without the advice of counsel, demonstrates that he did not fully understand either his right to remain silent or the warning that anything he said could be used against him. This claim is foreclosed by our decisions in State v. Harris, 188 Conn 574, 580,452 A.2d 634 (1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1089, 103 S. Ct. 1785, 76 L. Ed. 2d 354 (1983), and State v. Frazier, 185 Conn. 211, 440 A.2d 916 (1981), cert. denied, 458 U.S. 1112, 102 S. Ct. 3496, 73 L. Ed. 2d 1375 (1982). In State v. Harris, supra, 578, the defendant was unwilling to make a written statement before consultation with a lawyer, but nonetheless proceeded to make oral statements placing himself at the scene of the crime. We concluded that “the defendant’s expressed willingness to speak constituted an explicit affirmative act evidencing waiver, which the court could reasonably find persuasive despite the defendant’s refusal to sign the waiver form.” Id., 580. In a similar vein, we held, in State v. *451 Frazier, supra, 225-26, that a refusal to give a written statement does not, in itself, preclude a finding of waiver.

The determination that the defendant validly waived his right to remain silent is buttressed by affirmative evidence of the defendant’s knowing participation in his custodial interrogation. The officer who administered the Miranda warnings to the defendant in this case testified at the suppression hearing that the defendant, when asked if the warnings needed to be clarified, “indicated to me, no, he understood everything fairly well.” More important, the defendant himself testified that he understood his rights. The defendant in fact partially exercised his Miranda rights by refusing to give a written statement without his attorney present. In an analogous situation, we have held that the assertion of the right to remain silent after an initial willingness to speak with police is a strong indication that the defendant understood his rights. State v. Pecoraro, supra, 208-209; State v. Pellegrino, 194 Conn. 279, 289, 480 A.2d 537 (1984). The only contrary indicium to which the defendant points is his lack of prior experience with the police. That single fact is not sufficient to defeat a finding of waiver otherwise supported by the record. State v. Frazier, supra, 226. Accordingly, we find ample support for the trial court’s conclusion that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his constitutional right to remain silent.

B

The defendant also claims that his oral statements should be suppressed because they were made involuntarily. Irrespective of Miranda, and the fifth amendment itself, due process of law prohibits the state from using an involuntary confession at trial. Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 475, 73 S. Ct. 397, 97 L. Ed. 469 (1953); State v. Shifflett, supra, 727. The state has the burden *452of proving the voluntariness of a confession by a preponderance of the evidence. Colorado v. Connelly, 479 U.S. 157, 168, 107 S. Ct. 515, 93 L. Ed. 2d 473 (1986); Lego v. Twomey, 404 U.S. 477, 489, 92 S. Ct. 619, 30 L. Ed. 2d 618 (1972); State v. Chung, supra, 53; State v. Smith, 200 Conn. 465, 477, 512 A.2d 189 (1986). Unless that burden is met, a confession compelled by pressure from a police officer is inadmissible for any purpose. Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U.S. 385, 398, 98 S. Ct. 2408, 57 L. Ed. 2d 290 (1978); State v. Smith, supra, 476. The United States Supreme Court recently declared that “coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to the finding that a confession is not ‘voluntary’ within the meaning of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Colorado v. Connelly, supra, 167. Provided that predicate exists, “ ‘[t]he ultimate test remains ... ‘Is the confession the product of an essentially free and unconstrained choice by its maker? If it is, if he has willed to confess, it may be used against him. If it is not, if his will has been overborne and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired, the use of his confession offends due process.’ ” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U.S. 218, 225-26, 93 S. Ct. 2041, 36 L. Ed. 2d 854 (1973), quoting Culombe v. Connecticut, 367 U.S. 568, 602, 81 S. Ct. 1860, 6 L. Ed. 2d 1037 (1961). The question of voluntariness is one of fact for determination by the trial court in the exercise of its discretion, subject to the constitutional standards of due process. State v. Derrico, 181 Conn. 151,162-63, 434 A.2d 356, cert. denied, 449 U.S. 1064,101 S. Ct. 789, 66 L. Ed. 2d 607 (1980); State v. Staples, 175 Conn. 398, 408, 399 A.2d 1269 (1978).

We find no persuasive evidence of involuntariness on the present record. The defendant contends that he involuntarily incriminated himself because the police: (1) offered no medical attention to an eye injury he had suffered prior to interrogation; and (2) repeatedly urged *453him to make a written statement, in spite of his limited invocation of his right to counsel. As to the former, the record indicates that the minor eye injury did not interfere with the defendant’s capacity to decide for himself whether to cooperate with the police. The defendant conceded under cross-examination that his eye injury did not render him incapable of hearing and understanding his rights. The latter claim is similarly meritless. Whatever persuasion the police attempted to exercise was, in the final analysis, irrelevant because it was fruitless: the police never succeeded in having the defendant execute a written statement. The defendant therefore suffered no visible harm from whatever pressure the police exerted. The defendant does not claim on appeal that he was physically restrained or abused or otherwise coerced or cajoled into incriminating himself. The record fails to indicate that the defendant suffered from a disabling educational, intellectual or psychological deficit. State v. Weidenhof, 205 Conn. 262, 268, 533 A.2d 545 (1987); State v. Harris, supra, 581. The trial court therefore did not err in finding his statements to have been voluntary.

Ill

The defendant’s final claim of error relates to an allegedly late disclosure of written summaries of the defendant’s oral statements prepared by the police. By pretrial motion pursuant to Practice Book § 750,5 the defendant moved for production of the substance of any oral declarations he had made to the police of which *454a written or other tangible recording existed. The trial court, Reynolds, J., granted this motion. Prior to trial, the state disclosed the substance of oral statements contained in a written report of Officer Peter Cameron, one of the three officers present during the interrogation sessions. The state did not, however, disclose similar reports filed by the two other officers, Sergeant John Genovese and Lieutenant Murt Howard. These reports were only disclosed to the defendant after the complaining witness had testified at trial. None of the officers had as yet testified.

The trial court held a suppression hearing to determine the consequences of this late disclosure. The defendant argued that Genovese and Howard should be precluded from testifying about his oral statements because the delay in the disclosure of their reports violated the trial court’s discovery order. The trial court ruled, however, that the state had in fact complied with the discovery order because the untimely reports did not reveal anything new of “substance” as that term is used in Practice Book § 750. The defendant properly preserved his objection to this ruling.

In his brief on appeal, the defendant initially claimed that the trial court’s ruling had been erroneous because the belated reports contained a new and significant fact, damaging to the defendant, concerning the victim’s struggle during the assault. At oral argument, however, defense counsel withdrew this claim after noticing that the Cameron report, which had been disclosed prior to trial, had also referred to the struggling of the victim.6 The defendant nonetheless maintains that he *455suffered prejudice because the allegedly late disclosures contained four additional facts not revealed by the first report. The gist of this claim is that the late disclosures denied the defendant the opportunity to prepare for cross-examination of the victim and the officers.

We decline to review this claim, however, because the defendant admittedly did not seek a continuance or recess in order to minimize the possibility of prejudice. When an allegedly erroneous nondisclosure does not implicate a constitutional right, this court has rarely set aside a conviction unless the defendant has suffered unavoidable prejudice. A continuance is ordinarily the proper method for dealing with a late disclosure. State v. Villafane, 171 Conn. 644, 669, 372 A.2d 82 (1976), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 1106, 97 S. Ct. 1137, 51 L. Ed. 2d 558 (1977), overruled in part on other grounds, State v. Stepney, 191 Conn. 233, 464 A.2d 758 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1084, 104 S. Ct. 1455, 79 L. Ed. 2d 772, reh. denied, 466 U.S. 954, 104 S. Ct. 2163, 80 L. Ed. 2d 547 (1984); see State v. Miner, 197 Conn. 298, 305-306, 497 A.2d 382 (1985). We reject the defendant’s claim that the trial court erred in not ordering a continuance sua sponte. We have not previously imposed such a duty on the trial court and the present circumstances do not warrant a departure from existing procedures. State v. Boucino, 199 Conn. 207, 215, 506 A.2d 125 (1986).

There is no error.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.

Peters, C. J.

The principal issue in this appeal is whether the police are constitutionally required under *158state law to inform a suspect whom they are holding for custodial interrogation of timely efforts by counsel to render pertinent legal assistance. The defendant, Robert Stoddard, was charged by amended information with the crime of felony murder in violation of General Statutes § 53a-54c.1 After a jury found the defendant guilty as charged, the trial court rendered a judgment sentencing the defendant to a term of imprisonment of fifty years.

The jury could reasonably have concluded that, on the evening of March 23,1984, the defendant went to the home of the victim knowing that the victim, who was soon to embark on a trip to Las Vegas, had a substantial amount of cash on hand. Two days later, after the victim had failed to meet a traveling companion to depart for Las Vegas, the police investigated. Entering the victim’s home through an unlocked door, an investigating officer found the victim lying dead in the bathroom. A subsequent autopsy revealed that the victim had died from a single gunshot wound in the back of the neck. In their search of the victim’s home, which *159had not been ransacked, the police were unable to locate the wallet, cash or jewelled rings known to belong to the victim.

On the night of the crime, the defendant borrowed a car, allegedly in order to pick up money due him from the sale of his house. He returned to the apartment where he was living approximately one and one-half hours later with more than $2000 in cash. He proceeded to destroy several credit cards and papers. After a few hours of local bar hopping, the defendant, joined by his girl friend, set out for New York City in a taxicab. On their return to Connecticut, the defendant disposed of the slide and barrel of a pistol by throwing them from the window of the moving taxi into a river. A firearms expert concluded that the slug removed from the victim had been fired from the barrel that had been thrown into the river.

On appeal, the defendant claims that the trial court should have granted his motion to suppress statements that he gave to the police because: (1) the failure of the police to inform him of counsel’s repeated efforts to contact him to provide pertinent legal assistance prior to his stationhouse confession rendered inoperative his waiver of the presence of counsel; (2) his right to counsel would have attached but for an impermissible delay in arraignment, itself caused by the closing of courts on the allegedly illegal state holiday of Good Friday; and (3) his right to counsel had attached with the issuance of an arrest warrant. Because we agree with the defendant on his first claim, we need not consider the latter two.

I

The defendant contends that the due process clause of article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution requires the police to inform a suspect in custody of timely efforts by a specific attorney to provide perti*160nent legal assistance. As the defendant concedes, this claim is untenable under federal constitutional law. The United States Supreme Court recently held that efforts by counsel to contact an in-custody suspect have no bearing on the validity of that suspect’s waiver of rights guaranteed by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 422, 106 S. Ct. 1135, 89 L. Ed. 2d 410 (1986).

A

The relevant facts are undisputed. On March 27, 1984, two days after the discovery of the victim’s body, the defendant, having heard that the police wanted to question him regarding the death, called a Bridgeport police detective. After telling the detective that he would not come to the station, the defendant said that on the night in question he and his girl friend went bar hopping in Bridgeport and in New York City. Roughly one week later, the defendant gave a written statement to the police following a stationhouse interview accompanied by Miranda warnings. In that statement, the defendant denied killing the victim. The defendant’s next encounter with Bridgeport police came on Thursday, April 19, 1984, at about 1:15 p.m., when he was arrested outside his home. Before leaving for the police station, the defendant spoke briefly with his girl friend through the partly opened front door of his home.2 The defendant was then taken to the nearby station and, en route, received Miranda warnings. Because the drive to the station took only two or three minutes, the defendant was in custody at the station no later than 1:30 p.m. Upon arrival, the police again apprised the defendant of his Miranda rights, completing the task at about 1:40 p.m. In a process normally taking thirty *161to forty-five minutes to complete, the defendant was booked, and then taken to a room for interrogation.

In the meantime, within fifteen minutes of the arrest, the defendant’s girl friend tried to reach attorney William Fitzpatrick III, who had represented the defendant on prior charges. Informed that William Fitzpatrick was unavailable, she spoke instead with his senior partner, John Fitzpatrick, who told her that he would promptly contact the defendant. At about 1:30 p.m., Attorney Fitzpatrick made the first of four calls to the Bridgeport police station. Identifying himself as counsel for the defendant, Fitzpatrick explained that he wanted to arrange to speak with his client. On this and all subsequent calls, counsel’s requests to speak with the defendant were not limited to any specific purpose. Although the trial court indicated that one of counsel’s primary reasons for calling was to arrange bond for the defendant, counsel testified repeatedly that his general goal was to speak privately with his client. Because the trial court expressly credited the entirety of defense counsel’s testimony and the state agreed, the record amply supports a broad interpretation of counsel’s efforts.

When the officer answering counsel’s first phone call said she had no record of the defendant’s presence, counsel asked to speak to a higher authority. A sergeant who was summoned to handle counsel’s call told him that, “we have no record of him being here.” Counsel’s second call, made at about 2 p.m., resulted in a similar denial of the defendant’s presence at the station. Because of these responses, counsel did not personally appear at the station demanding to see the defendant, and did not ask the police not to interrogate the defendant.

Shortly into the interrogation, the defendant telephoned his girl friend at 2:17 p.m. She in turn spoke *162to Attorney Fitzpatrick for a second time. Counsel thereafter called the Bridgeport police station again some time after 3 p.m., identified himself as the defendant’s lawyer, and asked to speak with him. Because counsel was again told that the defendant was not on the premises, counsel made no further effort to reach his client until the next morning. Later that evening, the defendant gave a statement implicating his girl friend in the victim’s death and denying that he had killed him. The defendant spent the night in the lockup of the Bridgeport station.

The next morning, counsel made a final unsuccessful attempt to contact his client. He received the same answer denying that the defendant was in the custody of the Bridgeport police. At mid-morning, however, the defendant was brought from the lockup to view newly obtained evidence, consisting of the slide and barrel of the pistol the police had retrieved from a river. After signing a card containing Miranda warnings, the defendant told the police he would discuss the crime. Prior to giving a written statement, the defendant also signed a waiver of rights form. By 3 p.m. that afternoon, the defendant had signed an incriminating five page statement, which was later read to the jury by one of the interrogating officers. None of the defendant’s other statements was admitted at trial.

During this course of events, from arrest to confession, the defendant did not know that his attorney was making repeated efforts to contact him. Similarly, the interrogating officers had no knowledge of the efforts of counsel. In his calls, counsel did not specifically request to speak with the detective bureau, and because the front desk officer did not forward the calls, no one in the detective bureau knew of the calls.3

*163After a hearing, the trial court held the statement to be admissible. The court determined, inter alia, that under prevailing state and federal law the defendant had fully waived his rights to counsel and to remain silent and had freely chosen to incriminate himself. In the calculus of waiver, the court gave no weight to the repeated efforts of counsel because it found the holding of Moran v. Burbine, supra, to be controlling. After determining that the defendant was not informed of the Thursday calls because of inadvertence, however, the court stated: “I cannot personally find any excuse for failing to tell [the defendant] on Friday.”

B

The defendant first urges us to impose a duty upon police officers who are holding a suspect for custodial interrogation to act reasonably, diligently and promptly to apprise the suspect of efforts by counsel to provide pertinent and timely legal assistance. He further argues that any dereliction in the performance of this duty necessarily undermines the suspect’s waiver of the right to have counsel present during questioning. While we agree with the defendant that such a duty exists, we hold instead that a waiver of rights may or may not, depending upon the totality of the circumstances, be vitiated by the failure of the police to fulfill their responsiblity to inform the suspect.

*164While the United States Supreme Court recently refused to impose a similar duty upon the police under the federal constitution, it nonetheless recognized that “[n]othing we say today disables the States from adopting different requirements for the conduct of its employees and officials as a matter of state law.” Moran v. Burbine, supra, 428. This recognition, no doubt mandated in part by well known principles of federalism; Michigan v. Long, 463 U.S. 1032, 103 S. Ct. 3469, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1201 (1983); was also prompted by a reluctance to intrude into the administration of state criminal processes. Even though it “share[d] [the defendant’s] distaste for the deliberate misleading of an officer of the court,” the court stated that “[nothing in the Constitution vests in us the authority to mandate a code of behavior for state officials” unless necessary to enforce a federal right. Moran v. Burbine, supra, 424-25. Further, in rejecting the due process claim advanced by the defendant, the court stated that the police conduct at issue did not “warrant a federal intrusion” into state criminal processes. Id., 433-34.

The appropriate task for this court, then, is to ascertain the independent meaning of the due process clause of article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution.4 This state has had a long history of recognizing the significance of the right to counsel, even before that right attained federal constitutional importance. Until 1836, the common law of England denied the services of counsel to a person charged with a felony for anything but advisory guidance on questions of law. Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 60, 53 S. Ct. 55, 77 L. Ed. 158 (1932). This rule was defended largely on the theory that the court itself was counsel for the accused. Id., 61.

*165Although in 1708 Connecticut enacted a law prohibiting pleading for hire without the express consent of the court; State v. Gethers, 197 Conn. 369, 389-90 n.19, 497 A.2d 408 (1985); the custom of assigning counsel in all criminal cases quickly became the norm. State v. Davis, 199 Conn. 88, 99, 506 A.2d 86 (1986). By the end of the eighteenth century, the Connecticut legislature had “abolished all those odious laws” arising from the English common law tradition and had assured that any person charged with a crime was “entitled to every possible privilege in making his defence, and manifesting his innocence, by the instrumentality of counsel . . . .” 2 Z. Swift, A System of Laws of the State of Connecticut (1796) p. 399.

When the customary right to counsel was formally incorporated into the Connecticut constitution in 1818, “the advice and services of counsel were regarded as crucial to a criminal defendant at any time, especially given the inability of a defendant to testify in Connecticut in 1818.” State v. Davis, supra, 99-100. More contemporary developments suggest that this state’s commitment to securing the right to counsel has not diminished since 1818. Not only was Connecticut “the first state to adopt the public defender system”; State v. Hudson, 154 Conn. 631, 635, 228 A.2d 132 (1967); but the right to counsel “was secured to criminal defendants in this state long before the mandate of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U.S. 335, 83 S. Ct. 792, 9 L. Ed. 2d 799 [(1962) (holding that the fourteenth amendment incorporated the sixth amendment right to counsel)] . . . ." Spring v. Constantino, 168 Conn. 563, 566-67 n.2, 362 A.2d 871 (1975). The United States Supreme Court has turned to the historical experience of Connecticut in expanding the right to counsel under the federal constitution. Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 827, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562 (1975); Powell v. Alabama, supra, 62-63.

*166While this history specifically illuminates the right to counsel that attaches after the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings, it also informs the due process concerns raised by police interference with counsel’s access to a custodial suspect. Cf. State v. Ferrell, 191 Conn. 37, 42 n.5, 463 A.2d 573 (1983). In recently reiterating that Miranda warnings are “independently required” under the due process clause of article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution; State v. Barrett, 205 Conn. 437, 447, 534 A.2d 219 (1987); we recognized, once again, the “ ‘unique ability’ ” of counsel to protect the rights of a client undergoing, or confronting the imminent possibility of, interrogation. Id., 447-48, quoting Fare v. Michael C., 442 U.S. 707, 719, 99 S. Ct. 2560, 61 L. Ed. 2d 197, reh. denied, 444 U.S. 887, 100 S. Ct. 186, 62 L. Ed. 2d 121 (1979).

This recognition is in service of the traditional belief that an accused may be convicted only if “exacting measures have been taken to assure that the accused has been treated with the most scrupulous fairness” by law enforcement officials. State v. Ferrell, supra, 41. Because counsel is uniquely prepared to assist a suspect in making an intelligent and knowing decision whether to speak or stand mute, we have concluded that questioning of a suspect must cease once a clear request for counsel has been made. State v. Acquin, 187 Conn. 647, 667, 448 A.2d 163 (1982), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1229, 103 S. Ct. 3570, 77 L. Ed. 2d 1411 (1983). The decision in Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 444, itself the benchmark in this area of law, required “fully effective means” of ensuring a suspect’s continuous right of access to counsel.

In light of both the historical record and our due process tradition, we conclude that a suspect must be informed promptly of timely efforts by counsel to render pertinent legal assistance. Armed with that information, the suspect must be permitted to choose *167whether he wishes to speak with counsel, in which event interrogation must cease, or whether he will forego assistance of counsel, in which event counsel need not be afforded access to the suspect. The police may not preclude the suspect from exercising the choice to which he is constitutionally entitled by responding in less than forthright fashion to the efforts by counsel to contact the suspect. The police, because they are responsible for the suspect’s isolation, have a duty to act reasonably, diligently and promptly to provide counsel with accurate information and to apprise the suspect of the efforts by counsel.

We do not lightly undertake to impose additional responsibilities upon the law enforcement officials of this state but will do so where constitutional rights are squarely implicated. The duty to inform is justified not only by history and due process concerns but also by its ease of application. Within the parameters we have outlined, this duty requires only that the police act as a neutral conduit for the pertinent and timely requests by counsel to meet with a custodial suspect. In order to articulate further the scope of the duty, and to provide guidance to law enforcement officials, we deem it advisable to address several potential criticisms of the rule we announce today.

One objection that has been voiced is that a third party, such as an attorney, has no authority to invoke the personal right of the suspect to advice and presence of counsel. Fuentes v. Moran, 572 F. Sup. 1461, 1469 (D.R.I.1983), aff'd, 733 F.2d 176 (1st Cir. 1984); Blanks v. State, 254 Ga. 420, 423, 330 S.E.2d 575 (1985). This criticism misunderstands the underlying premise of requiring the police to inform a suspect of the efforts of counsel. We recognize the proposition that the suspect alone can invoke the right to counsel. We therefore decline to follow the strict rule, adopted by the New York courts, that counsel may invoke the *168rights of a suspect merely by diligently intervening in the proceeding. People v. Rogers, 48 N.Y.2d 167, 397 N.E.2d 709, 422 N.Y.S.2d 18 (1979); People v. Arthur, 22 N.Y.2d 325, 239 N.E.2d 537, 292 N.Y.S.2d 663 (1968).

We are unwilling, however, to dismiss counsel's effort to communicate as constitutionally insignificant to the capacity of the suspect to make a knowing and intelligent choice whether he or she will invoke the right to counsel. Miranda warnings refer only to an abstract right to counsel. That a suspect validly waives the presence of counsel “only means that for the moment the suspect is foregoing the exercise of that conceptual privilege.” Weber v. State, 457 A.2d 674, 685 (Del. 1983). Faced with a concrete offer of assistance, however, a suspect may well decide to reclaim his or her continuing right to legal assistance. “To pass up an abstract offer to call some unknown lawyer is very different from refusing to talk with an identified attorney actually available to provide at least initial assistance and advice, whatever might be arranged in the long run. A suspect indifferent to the first offer may well react quite differently to the second.” State v. Haynes, 288 Or. 59, 72, 602 P.2d 272 (1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 945, 100 S. Ct. 2175, 64 L. Ed. 2d 802 (1980). We cannot therefore conclude that a decision to forego the abstract offer contained in Miranda embodies an implied rejection of a specific opportunity to confer with a known lawyer. Accordingly, the lack of authority of counsel to invoke the personal right of the suspect is no bar to the imposition of a duty to inform a suspect of counsel’s efforts. Dunn v. State, 696 S.W.2d 561, 565-69 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985).

A second criticism is that the police have no general duty to “supply a suspect with a flow of information to help him calibrate his self-interest in deciding whether to speak or stand by his rights.” Moran v. Burbine, *169supra, 422; State v. Blanford, 306 N.W.2d 93, 96 (Iowa 1981); State v. Hanson, 136 Wis. 2d 195, 212, 401 N.W.2d 771 (1987). Such a duty, it has been argued, would upset Miranda’s “subtle balance” between the societal interest in securing admissions of guilt and the suspect’s privilege against self-incrimination. Moran v. Burbine, supra, 426. As with the critique, discussed above, that counsel lacks authority to invoke the personal right of a suspect, we largely agree with the underlying premise of this second complaint but question its relevance to the issue at hand. It may well be that the police have no duty to provide information about such general topics as “the nature and quality of the evidence” against the suspect. Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 317, 105 S. Ct. 1285, 84 L. Ed. 2d 222 (1985). The police conduct at issue in this case, however, consists not of a failure to supply generally useful information but of a failure to apprise the defendant of a specific communication from his attorney that bore directly on the right to counsel.5 Moran v. Burbine, supra, 456 n.42 (Stevens, J., dissenting); People v. Houston, 42 Cal. 3d 595, 612 n.19, 724 P.2d 1166, 230 Cal. Rptr. 141 (1986); State v. Matthews, 408 So. 2d 1274, 1278 (La. 1982); Lewis v. State, 695 P.2d 528, 530 (Okla. Crim. App. 1984).

According to a third criticism, only educated and wealthy suspects, or career criminals with established ties to counsel, will benefit from the rule we announce today. People v. Houston, supra, 622 (Lucas, J., dissenting); State v. Hanson, supra. This criticism focuses on the egalitarian premise of Miranda that all suspects are entitled to know their rights, not only sophisticated and astute ones. We perceive no reason, however, to *170penalize the suspect whose counsel is ready and able to provide assistance merely because there may be suspects, whether due to ignorance or poverty, who do not enjoy the same advantage. “Even the intelligent and educated layman has small or sometimes no skill in the science of law.” Powell v. Alabama, supra, 69. On the other hand, suspects that may not be well educated may well know their constitutional rights in this area. Any commitment to fundamental constitutional rights must acknowledge that their use and application will differ from one situation to the next. Just as Miranda itself assumes that its warnings will be understood, so it is that an experienced or educated suspect can be expected to exercise those rights with greater regularity and to a more fruitful end.

Under a further critique, only intentional conduct of the police in denying access of counsel to a custodial suspect is prohibited by the duty to inform. We cannot accept such a demarcation. The essential aim of the Miranda rule is to ensure that a suspect is properly and fully advised of the panoply of rights afforded by the state and federal constitutions and to guarantee that any waiver of those rights is knowing, intelligent and voluntary. State v. Ferrell, supra, 42. In fulfilling this mission, “[t]he focus must be on the rights of the accused, not the innocence or culpability of the police.” Commonwealth v. Hilliard, 471 Pa. 318, 323, 370 A.2d 322 (1977). Although police misconduct can figure importantly in the assessment of waiver, particularly when allegations of threats, promises and untoward inducements are made, the ultimate inquiry is whether the suspect understood and waived his rights. We therefore conclude that a test that hinges solely on intentional police interference is inconsistent with the underlying focus of the Miranda rule.

Finally, objections to the duty to inform have been made on practical grounds. Moran v. Burbine, supra, *171425; State v. Hanson, supra. The principal objection is that a rule requiring the police to inform a suspect of efforts by counsel will undermine the clarity of the Miranda guidelines. This objection, however, is more concerned with the convenience of the police than with the clarity of Miranda guidelines. We fail to perceive any difficulty in administering a rule that simply requires the police accurately to monitor an external event, such as a telephone call from counsel. In addition, we do not regard the scope of this duty to be riddled with insoluble questions, as several courts have argued. Three such questions have been: (1) whether counsel must be physically present in the police building in order to trigger the police duty; State v. Hanson, supra; (2) whether it is enough to inform a supervisory officer even though the interrogating officer may not have personal knowledge of the request; Moran v. Burbine, supra, 425; and (3) whether counsel must have had a prior attorney-client relationship with the suspect in order to trigger the duty. State v. Hanson, supra. Answers to these questions will illustrate the simplicity of the rule we announce today.

First, counsel’s phone calls in this case obviated any need for him to appear physically at the police station. Once counsel is told that his client is not in custody, it is not then reasonable to require counsel to double check the accuracy of the police answer by physically presenting himself at the station. What is required of counsel is a reasonably diligent, timely and pertinent request to consult with a client. A request is diligent if all necessary steps have been taken to notify the police clearly in the ordinary course of business, timely if made prior to the giving of incriminatory statements, and pertinent if counsel clearly indicates that access to the suspect is sought for the general purpose of providing legal assistance. In any case, counsel’s request must be in a form and at a time that affords the police a reasonable opportunity to respond.

*172Second, lack of knowledge on the part of the interrogating officers is not dispositive because it is for the police, as an entity, to establish and maintain adequate procedures that will facilitate the. reasonably prompt communication between an attorney and a suspect. See People v. Garofolo, 46 N.Y.2d 592, 600-601, 389 N.E.2d 123, 415 N.Y.S.2d 810 (1979); People v. Pinzon, 44 N.Y.2d 458, 464, 377 N.E.2d 721, 406 N.Y.S.2d 268 (1978). In this case, the Bridgeport police should have understood that they were repeatedly being asked to convey counsel’s efforts to reach his client. Although there was no proof that the police deliberately misled counsel, the trial court expressly found that there was no excuse for not informing the defendant of the Friday morning call. Whether intentional or negligent, the failure to inform the defendant constitutes a violation of the duty of the police to keep track of the suspect and to serve as a neutral conduit between counsel and the suspect. Accordingly, the fact that counsel did not call directly to the detective bureau, or ask to be transferred to that bureau, does not invalidate his efforts.

Third, the prior existence of an attorney-client relationship is not relevant to the duty itself. While a suspect may decline the proffered services of a lawyer who unilaterally intervenes in the proceeding, we think it unwise to impose upon the police the responsibility of ascertaining the nature of the putative relationship between counsel and the suspect. The existence, or lack thereof, of an attorney-client nexus relates to the question of waiver, which we take up in part II of this opinion. We therefore decline to import this factor into the threshold question of the duty to inform.

II

Although we agree with the defendant that the police have a duty to inform a custodial suspect of counsel’s efforts to provide legal advice, our inquiry is not at an *173end. We must next consider in what circumstances statements obtained in violation of this duty must be suppressed. The resolution of this question hinges on well known principles governing the waiver of constitutional rights.

The right to have counsel present during interrogation can be waived by the suspect. “The state has the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant knowingly and intelligently waived his Miranda rights, including his right to remain silent [and to presence of counsel]. State v. Boscarino, 204 Conn. 714, 743, 529 A.2d 1260 (1987); State v. Hernandez, 204 Conn. 377, 395, 528 A.2d 794 (1987); State v. Chung, 202 Conn. 39, 48, 519 A.2d 1175 (1987); State v. Toste, 198 Conn. 573, 579-80, 504 A.2d 1036 (1986). A valid waiver is defined, in accordance with the well known test of Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458, 464, 58 S. Ct. 1019, 82 L. Ed. 1461 (1938), as the intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right. State v. Shockley, 188 Conn. 697, 706, 453 A.2d 441 (1982); State v. Reed, 174 Conn. 287, 293, 386 A.2d 243 (1978).” State v. Barrett, 449-50. An effective waiver, however, “presupposes full knowledge of the right or privilege allegedly waived.” State v. Ramos, 201 Conn. 598, 603, 519 A.2d 9 (1986). In addition, the waiver must be “accomplished with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences.” State v. Reed, supra. Even after a suspect has validly waived his or her rights, there exists a “continuous opportunity” to invoke or reinvoke the rights “in any manner and at any stage of the process” of interrogation. Miranda v. Arizona, supra, 444-45. We therefore conclude that a waiver of presence of counsel can, under certain circumstances, be shown invalid if the police fail to inform a suspect of the efforts by counsel.

The question before us is how to interpolate into the calculus of waiver the failure of the police to inform *174a suspect of inquiries by counsel. Courts in other jurisdictions have taken two views of this issue. Some have adopted a per se rule of exclusion in order to enforce the duty to inform. Others have taken a more open ended examination of the totality of the circumstances.

In the majority of reported cases, the rule has been that a lack of knowledge always fatally undermines the suspect’s continuing right to claim the presence of counsel. The principal reason for adhering to a per se rule of exclusion is ably stated by the Supreme Court of Oregon: “When the opportunity to consult counsel is in fact frustrated, there is no room for speculation what defendant might or might not have chosen to do after he had that opportunity.” State v. Haynes, supra, 75; see also People v. Houston, supra, 610; Weber v. State, supra, 685; People v. Holland, 147 Ill. App. 3d 323, 332-33, 497 N.E.2d 1230 (1986); State v. Matthews, supra, 1278; Commonwealth v. Sherman, 389 Mass. 287, 291, 450 N.E.2d 566 (1983); People v. Garofolo, supra, 599; State v. Stephens, 300 N.C. 321, 327, 266 S.E.2d 588 (1980); Lewis v. State, supra, 531; Commonwealth v. Hilliard, supra, 322; State v. Jones, 19 Wash. App. 850, 854, 578 P.2d 71 (1978).

We do not agree with the majority rule. The decision to speak or to stand mute is a personal right of the suspect. That decision, made on the basis of full knowledge of all relevant circumstances, belongs exclusively to him. Commonwealth v. Sherman, supra, 292. Had the police officials in this case properly responded with the communication, the defendant might conceivably have taken the advice of counsel to remain silent. Commonwealth v. McKenna, 355 Mass. 313, 324, 244 N.E.2d 560 (1969); People v. Garofolo, supra, 600. By the same token, the suspect might have chosen to cooperate with the police and waive the presence of counsel. State v. Murphy, 44 Wash. App. 290, 292-94, *175721 P.2d 30 (1986). We therefore decline to impose, by judicial fiat, a blanket rule of exclusion or admissibility.

Reliance on the totality of the circumstances is consistent with existing rules for the evaluation of the validity of a waiver. State v. Boscarino, supra, 743; State v. Hernandez, supra, 395; State v. Chung, supra, 48. The critical question is whether the information not conveyed by the police would likely have changed the defendant’s appraisal and understanding of the circumstances. Fuentes v. Moran, supra, 1471; Dunn v. State, supra, 569. Of particular, but not exclusive, relevance are such facts and circumstances as the relationship of the suspect to the attorney, the nature of counsel’s request, the extent to which the police had reasonable notice of counsel’s request and the conduct of the suspect. Fuentes v. Moran, supra, 1470; Dunn v. State, supra, 568.

In this case, the trial court concluded that the defendant had validly waived his Miranda rights. This ruling is challenged only on the basis that the trial court afforded no weight to efforts by counsel to contact the defendant. By implication, then, the defendant does not challenge the trial court’s conclusion that the police did not threaten or intimidate the defendant or use actual force to extract his incriminatory statement of Friday, April 20, 1984. On appeal, the defendant’s claim is solely that the failure of the police to discharge their duty to keep him informed of counsel’s efforts robbed his waiver of the required elements of knowledge and intelligence.

Facing similar claims, courts in other jurisdictions have come to varied conclusions. A federal district court in Fuentes v. Moran, supra, refused to order suppression. This holding rested largely on the narrowness of counsel’s request. After reviewing the record, the court concluded that counsel had called the station twice for *176the limited purpose of ascertaining the custodial status of his client. Neither call, the court held, could be characterized as an attempt to contact the suspect for the general purpose of providing advice on the exercise of constitutional rights. Id., 1472. Accordingly, the court held that it was not reasonably likely that the suspect would have changed his appraisal and understanding of the circumstances had he known of the efforts by counsel. By contrast, the court in Dunn v. State, supra, after applying a totality of the circumstances test, concluded that suppression was required. In reaching its conclusion that the “appellant ... if given a knowing and intelligent choice, might certainly have opted to remain silent,” the court placed particular reliance on the ready availability of counsel to provide advice of a general nature. Id., 569.

The record in this case, taken as a whole, reveals at least a reasonable likelihood that the defendant would have invoked his right to counsel had the police fulfilled their duty to inform. First, the content of counsel’s aborted communications over a period of two days was pertinent to the exercise of the right to counsel. Because counsel’s requests to speak with the defendant were phrased generally, and not specifically limited to a topic, such as bail, that has no bearing on the right to counsel, we can fairly infer that counsel would have advised the defendant to remain silent. Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 59, 69 S. Ct. 1347, 93 L. Ed. 1801 (1949) (Jackson, J., concurring). Second, because counsel was a member of a firm that had previously represented the defendant, the defendant could reasonably have been expected to respond to counsel’s offer of assistance.

Under the totality of the circumstances, the state has not met its burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that the efforts of counsel, if properly communicated, would not have altered the defendant’s *177appraisal and understanding of the circumstances. Accordingly, the trial court erred in denying the defendant’s motion to suppress.

There is error, the judgment is set aside and the case is remanded for a new trial.

In this opinion Healey and Glass, Js., concurred.

Shea, J., with whom Callahan, J.,

joins, dissenting. As the majority opinion recognizes, the United States Supreme Court has held in a case remarkably similar to this one that failure of the police to inform a person held in custody of a telephone call from an attorney engaged by another, without the request or knowledge of the suspect, does not undermine an otherwise valid waiver of his rights under the fifth amendment to our federal constitution to remain silent and to the presence of counsel during interrogation.1 Moran v. Burbine, 475 U.S. 412, 422, 106 S. Ct. 1135, 89 L. Ed. 2d 410 (1986). “Events occurring outside of the presence of the suspect and entirely unknown to him surely can have no bearing on the capacity to comprehend and knowingly relinquish a constitutional right.” Id.

The majority, nevertheless, rejects this view and, under the aegis of our state constitution, imposes upon the police in Connecticut a significant addition to the standard warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, *178384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694 (1966). This further obligation is that the police must inform a suspect in custody, prior to questioning him, that any attorney who may have telephoned, whether known to him or not, wishes to speak to him. Breach of that duty, whether by design or inadvertence, as in this case, is deemed to vitiate an otherwise knowledgeable waiver of the right of silence, unless the state is able to demonstrate that “the efforts of counsel, if properly communicated, would not have altered the [suspect’s] appraisal and understanding of the circumstances.”

The majority has thus created a significant expansion of Miranda, likely to impact a large proportion of those presently uncommon cases in which otherwise valid confessions have been obtained but the police have failed to inform the defendant that a lawyer had called him before he confessed. It will be a rare case where the state can show that knowledge of the call would not have affected the defendant’s decision to respond to police interrogation without legal assistance. Cf. State v. Murphy, 44 Wash. App. 290, 292-94, 721 P.2d 30 (1986). It would be an even less frequent event for an attorney, given the opportunity to speak to a suspect, not to advise him immediately to say nothing to the police. “[A]ny lawyer worth his salt will tell the suspect in no uncertain terms to make no statement to police under any circumstances.” Watts v. Indiana, 338 U.S. 49, 59, 69 S. Ct. 1347, 93 L. Ed. 2d 1801 (1949) (Jackson, J., concurring).

In this instance we are concerned with police frustration of access by an attorney to a suspect, a situation that has not occurred frequently in this state, but is not entirely unprecedented. See State v. Darwin, 155 Conn. 124, 155, 230 A.2d 573 (1967), rev’d and remanded, 391 U.S. 346, 88 S. Ct. 1488, 20 L. Ed. 2d 630 (1968).2 The majority opinion holds that “the prior *179existence of an attorney-client relationship is not relevant to the duty” of the police to inform a suspect that some lawyer wants to talk to him, but only to whether the suspect “could reasonably have been expected to respond to counsel’s offer of assistance.” This view has the potential for dramatically upsetting the balance struck by Miranda in resolving the dilemma for a free society posed by police interrogation of a suspect. Watts v. Indiana, supra. “To subject one without counsel to questioning which may and is intended to convict him, is a real peril to individual freedom. To bring in a lawyer means a real peril to solution of the crime, because, under our adversary system, he deems that his sole duty is to protect his client—guilty or innocent—and that in such a capacity he owes no duty whatever to help society solve its crime problem.” Id. If the prior existence of an attorney-client relationship is irrelevant to the duty imposed by the majority, it appears that any attorney may volunteer his advice to one held in custody and the police are then obliged to inform a suspect of that offer.

Furthermore, since the majority opinion declares that “[t]he critical question is whether the information conveyed by the police would likely have changed the defendant’s appraisal and understanding of the circumstances,” and is not grounded upon any attempt by the suspect to exercise his right to counsel, the logical implication is that the police have a duty to inform a suspect of an attempt to communicate with him by any person. A telephone call from someone without any legal training, such as a relative, friend, or even a total stranger might well provide a suspect with information “that would likely have changed [his] appraisal and understanding of the circumstances.” Since the rationale of the majority is that being told that a lawyer has *180sought to converse with a suspect is essential to a knowledgeable waiver of his right, to remain silent, attempts by others to warn him to say nothing to the police or to obtain legal assistance are not readily distinguishable from efforts of lawyers unsolicited by the suspect to convey the same information to him.

Indeed, if a knowledgeable waiver of the privilege against self-incrimination requires that a suspect be informed of every circumstance known to the police that might have affected his decision to confess, we open a veritable Pandora’s box. Heretofore courts have at least implicitly tolerated some of the less extreme forms of deception practiced by the police with the intention of inducing a suspect to confess as a kind of evil necessary for an effective interrogation process. Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 493-96, 97 S. Ct. 711, 50 L. Ed. 2d 714 (1977); Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96, 98 n.3, 96 S. Ct. 321, 46 L. Ed. 2d 313 (1975); State v. Falby, 187 Conn. 6, 14-16, 444 A.2d 213 (1982); see generally W. White, “Police Trickery in Inducing Confessions,” 127 U. Pa. L. Rev. 581 (1979). Are we now sub silentio signalling a new look at these cases leading to the imposition upon the police in their confrontations with criminals of standards more appropriate for those in a fiduciary relationship, “the punctilio of an honor the most sensitive?” Meinhard v. Salmon, 249 N.Y. 458, 464, 164 N.E. 545 (1928); see Pacelli Bros. Transportation, Inc. v. Pacelli, 189 Conn. 401, 407, 456 A.2d 325 (1983).

It cannot be denied that under our system the question of guilt or innocence turns not upon the facts but upon “only such evidence as [the defendant] cannot conceal from the authorities, who cannot compel him to testify in court and also cannot question him before,” without complying with the prophylactic standards of Miranda. Watts v. Indiana, supra, 59. We have accepted these restrictions on the ability of the state *181to prosecute crime as “a necessary price to pay for the fairness we know as ‘due process of law.' ” Id., 62. Miranda represents a compromise between the need of the state for effective interrogation of a suspect to solve a crime and the right of the individual to say nothing that may incriminate him. I am not inclined to upset this delicate balance that the police by now have learned to live with and thus increase the handicap on society in determining the truth in criminal investigations.

In deciding that the due process clause of our state constitution demands this new embellishment of Miranda, despite the rejection of such an interpretation of the identical language of the corresponding provision of our federal constitution by the United States Supreme Court, the majority relies upon the history of the laudable role this state has performed in the implementation of the right to counsel. As the majority concedes, this history “specifically illuminates the right to counsel that attaches after the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings,” i.e., the right specifically set forth in the sixth amendment to our federal constitution and in article first, § 8, of our state constitution. The majority does not question the holding in Moran that this right of counsel is not involved in questioning a suspect prior to initiation of formal criminal proceedings.3 Such illumination as is shed by the authorities cited, however, does not even remotely suggest that the right of counsel, even if advanced to the custodial interrogation stage of the proceeding, may be exercised by anyone but the person it is designed to protect. When a suspect, after being given the Miranda prescribed advice that he may have counsel present during a police interrogation, has declined such assistance, a telephone call from a lawyer unsolicited by the suspect can hardly be regarded as an assertion by the suspect of his right *182to counsel, whether based on our state or federal constitution.4

Thus the position taken by the majority for broadening the protection available to a criminal suspect in Connecticut beyond that federally required by Miranda finds no support in any textual difference between the state and federal constitutional provisions and very little in applicable precedent. It stems, therefore, primarily from the .view of the majority that the concept of fairness epitomized in the due process clause demands greater limitations on the police in this state than those imposed by Miranda. I believe that due process fairness, under our state as well as our federal constitution, must take into account the “felt necessities of the time”; O. W. Holmes, Jr., The Common Law (1881) p. 1; one of which is the magnitude of our crime problem. I would not, therefore, place this further restriction upon effective police interrogations when conducted in Connecticut.

Accordingly, I dissent.

McDONALD, J.

**320In Davis v. United States , 512 U.S. 452, 459-60, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994), the United States Supreme Court determined that, after a defendant has been informed of his Miranda rights,1 the police officers conducting a custodial interrogation have no obligation to stop and clarify an ambiguous invocation by the defendant of his right to have counsel present. Instead, they must cease interrogation only **321upon an objectively unambiguous, unequivocal invocation of that right. See id. The court recognized that this standard "might disadvantage some suspects who-because of fear, intimidation, lack of linguistic skills, or a variety of other reasons-will not clearly articulate their right to counsel although they actually want to have a lawyer present." Id., at 460, 114 S.Ct. 2350.

This certified appeal requires us to decide whether the Davis standard was met in this case, and, if not, whether a more protective prophylactic rule is required under the Connecticut constitution. The defendant, Robert John Purcell, appeals from the Appellate Court's judgment affirming his conviction of three counts of risk of injury to a child in violation of General Statutes § 53-21. See State v. Purcell , 174 Conn.App. 401, 405, 440, 166 A.3d 883 (2017). We conclude that the defendant's statements during interrogation did not meet Davis ' "clear and unequivocal" standard so as to require suppression of subsequent inculpatory statements under the federal constitution. We further conclude, however, that the Connecticut constitution does not condone a rule that could disadvantage the most vulnerable of our citizens. We hold that, to adequately *545safeguard the right against compelled self-incrimination under article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution,2 police officers are required to clarify an ambiguous request for counsel before they can continue the interrogation. Because no such clarification was elicited in the present case and the failure to do so was harmful, we conclude that the defendant is entitled to a new trial.

The record reveals the following undisputed facts and procedural history. The complainant (victim)3 is **322the nephew of the defendant by marriage. In September, 2013, the victim's mother found pictures on the victim's Nintendo DS game console that concerned her, including pictures of the clothed stomachs of the defendant and the victim's father and two pictures of circumcised penises.4 She deleted the pictures and asked her husband to speak to the victim. The victim's father spoke to him about the Catholic Church's teachings about sexuality, which prompted the victim to acknowledge that he had had thoughts about boys but to assert that it was not his fault. He then stated that the defendant "has been having sex with me." The victim's parents reported the allegation to the police.

The victim had made a similar statement concerning the defendant to a school social worker, who reported the allegation to the Department of Children and Families. In subsequent interviews, the victim described several incidents that he claimed had occurred between 2010, when he was twelve years old, and 2013. The incidents were reported to have occurred in public restrooms and at the defendant's home. The incidents were said to include inappropriate touching and sexual acts.

In October, 2013, the defendant agreed to come to the Wallingford Police Department to discuss a complaint made against him, but he was not made aware of the nature of the allegations prior to arriving. Detective Michael Zerella and another Wallingford police officer conducted the interview. When it became apparent to the defendant that he was being accused of engaging in sexually inappropriate conduct with his nephew, the defendant explained incidents that he could think of that served as the basis of the complaint but maintained that nothing inappropriate had happened. Zerella wondered aloud whether the defendant was "a sick, perverted **323person or, or stuff, stuff accidentally happened." Not long after this comment, the defendant announced that things were getting "a little bit too strange," and he terminated the interview.

On November 26, 2013, the defendant was arrested pursuant to the first of three warrants and charged with multiple counts of both sexual assault, first and second degree, and risk of injury to a child.5 Later that day, Zerella and Wallingford Detective Sean Fairbrother conducted the custodial *546interrogation that gives rise to the issues in this certified appeal.

The Appellate Court's opinion accurately recounts the following facts relating to that interrogation. "Zerella began the interview by reading the defendant his Miranda rights and asking him to complete a Miranda waiver form. The defendant asked: 'I can still, after, after, after I initial that, I can still stop answering then?' Zerella replied: 'Oh, anytime you want. No problem.'

"After the defendant completed the Miranda waiver form, Zerella asked the defendant whether he knew why he had been arrested. The defendant explained that he had received a letter from the Department of Children and Families (department) informing him that he was being investigated for allegations of child abuse with respect to the victim. When Zerella asked what he discussed with the department, the defendant stated that he had never talked to anyone from the department. Zerella asked why, and the defendant explained: 'Well, I asked my lawyer, and he said, well, just not to, I, I think that's, I think that's all together wrong, but that's what he said.' He went on to elaborate that 'my lawyer **324knows what's going on, you know? But, he says don't talk, I don't talk.' When Zerella asked him how he felt about that, the defendant stated: 'Well, it's like I said, I probably wouldn't be here now if I talked to them.' Zerella suggested that if he had elaborated more and been more forthcoming during the first interview, they might not be here. After some discussion about whether and why Zerella called him a pervert during the first interview, Zerella stated: 'Okay, well, we could, we could go on about the last interview if you want to, but-' The defendant interjected: '-I know, I know ... let's ... let's go on right, what, what more do you want to know?'

"After ... [Zerella explained] that a judge and [a] prosecutor had found probable cause to arrest him, the defendant observed that it was because 'I didn't talk, that's why.' Zerella remarked: 'Well, you did, you did talk to me. You did tell me a few things.' The defendant agreed but acknowledged, 'not enough, I know.' ... When Zerella asked the defendant to tell him some of the stories of his encounters with the victim, the defendant opined: 'I don't know the stories that he made up.'

"Fairbrother asked the defendant whether he knew the crime with which he was charged, and the defendant replied child abuse. Fairbrother explained that he was charged with sexual assault and risk of injury to a child. The defendant asked whether that means that the allegation is that he did something sexual with the victim, and Fairbrother said that it did. The defendant adamantly denied having sexual relations with the victim. When the detectives pressed him about whether there were any moments that could be misconstrued as inappropriate, the defendant responded: 'Well, yes, there's what, well, I, I, my lawyer said not to talk about it but, no ....' The detectives [responded, 'We'll leave it up to you' and 'Well, it's up to you'].

**325"The defendant observed that Zerella had told him that there was a picture of him naked on the victim's Nintendo DS during the first interview,6 and he asked repeatedly whether the picture actually existed. When Zerella suggested that the defendant had personal knowledge that the picture existed, the defendant insisted that *547he did not and that he knew about the picture only because Zerella told him about it during the first interview. Zerella maintained that 'there's other, other things, there's other instances beside that,' and, after the defendant asked what, Zerella observed that 'you just said, there [is] stuff but my lawyer told me not to talk about it.' The defendant stated that he was referring to the picture. He further asked, 'what else is there,' and opined that he wanted to know 'what they are pressing against me.' Thereafter, the following exchange occurred:

" '[Zerella]: Alls I got to say is, tomorrow, when you go in to court, you're gonna look at a judge and a prosecutor.... And they're gonna look at all this stuff, all these allegations that were made against you.... That it's a, it's a very, very strong case against you. Very, very strong. They're gonna look at it and say, listen, this, this man, because they don't know you from Adam, but they're just gonna see you.

" '[The Defendant]: Right. Well, they're gonna know my name.

" '[Zerella]: As, as a, as a, as a mean, as a mean individual.

" '[The Defendant]: Right.

" '[Zerella]: In, in reality-

" '[Fairbrother]: As a predator.

**326" '[Zerella]: As a predator, who, who's technically not cooperating and not saying, yeah, this is, this is what happened, this is probably why he thinks, thinks the way he does or-

" '[The Defendant]: -See , if my lawyer was here, I'd, then I'd, we could talk. That's, you know, that's it .

" '[Zerella]: It's up to you. You could-

" '[The Defendant]: -I know it. I know, I know, I know it.

" '[Zerella]: You could ... (a) talk to me or you could (b) not talk to me.

" '[The Defendant]: I know it but, I'm trying, you know I, I'm supposed to have my lawyer here. You know that.

" '[Zerella]: You don't, you don't have to, it's, it's-

" '[Fairbrother]: It's up to you.

" '[Zerella]: It's up to you, man. Some people talk to me without one, some people want one ... it's all up to you, man ... I'm just affording you that opportunity, that's all.

" '[Fairbrother]: The problem is that, at your age, you don't want to go to prison.

" '[The Defendant]: [indiscernible]

" '[Fairbrother]: Okay? You don't want to go to prison. If there was some inappropriate things with this child, something that can be explained, maybe you helped him go to the bathroom, maybe, you know, he makes some sort of crazy allegation or does some sort of craziness, he's not-

" '[Zerella]: -Maybe he-**327" '[Fairbrother]: He doesn't have a hundred percent capacity.7 If you're in a, now, now is the time to talk about it, now is [the time] to get your half out there.

" '[Zerella]: Yeah, maybe he came at you.

" '[Fairbrother]: -You know if-

" '[Zerella]: Maybe he came at you.

" '[Fairbrother]: You know, that, that's all we're offering you, the opportunity to, because it's the last time we're gonna be able to talk.

" '[Zerella]: That's all.

*548" '[Fairbrother]: You know, that's all, and, and, you know, if-

" '[The Defendant]: -Oh, geez, I don't know-

" '[Fairbrother]: -If you want to have an attorney-

" '[The Defendant]: -I, I don't think it's-

" '[Fairbrother]: -That's fine. You can, but-

" '[The Defendant]: -that's right, right or wrong, but, uh, real, really.

" '[Zerella]: Just, just affording you the opportunity, sir, because after, after today, you're never gonna be able to, to give me or any other cop your story. You're gonna let, a judge is gonna look at ya and say, some serious charges against you. You could go to jail for the rest of your life.

" '[The Defendant]: All right, now what's, what, what, what, uh, all right, I'll, I'll, I'll talk. Uh, what do you, what do you, what do you want to know? Tell, tell me, what do you want to know?" (Emphasis in original;

**328footnotes added.) State v. Purcell , supra, 174 Conn. App. at 418-23, 166 A.3d 883.

Thereafter, the custodial interrogation continued without further mention of counsel. Although the defendant did not admit to any of the acts alleged, he made statements that were used against him at trial.

During trial, the defendant moved to suppress certain statements that he had made during the interrogation, claiming that they had been elicited after he invoked his right to have counsel present. The trial court concluded that the defendant had not invoked his right to counsel in an unambiguous manner, because the statements were susceptible to another reasonable interpretation when viewed in context of the statements preceding them. Noting that "close is not good enough," the court denied the motion.

Following a jury trial, the defendant was convicted of three counts of risk of injury to a child-one count in violation of § 53-21 (a) (1) and two counts in violation of § 53-21 (a) (2).8 The defendant was acquitted of four other counts-one count of sexual assault in the first degree, two counts of sexual assault in the second degree, and one count of risk of injury to a child. The trial court rendered judgments in accordance with the **329verdicts, imposing a total effective sentence of sixteen years imprisonment, execution suspended after nine years, and ten years probation. The defendant appealed from the trial court's judgments, challenging, among other things, the court's denial of his motion to suppress.

The Appellate Court affirmed the judgments of conviction. See id., at 405, 440, 166 A.3d 883. The court concluded that the trial court properly denied the motion to suppress because the defendant's rights under the fifth and fourteenth amendments *549to the federal constitution were not violated during the interrogation. It reasoned that the defendant's references to counsel would not have been understood by a reasonable police officer as an expression of a present desire to consult with counsel. Id., at 425-27, 166 A.3d 883. The court also rejected the defendant's alternative, unpreserved claim that, if his statements were an ambiguous invocation of his right to counsel, the self-incrimination and due process clauses of article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution required the officers to cease questioning immediately and to clarify that ambiguity. Id., at 427-40, 166 A.3d 883 ; see State v. Golding , 213 Conn. 233, 239-40, 567 A.2d 823 (1989) (prescribing requirements to obtain review and to prevail on unpreserved constitutional claim); see also In re Yasiel , 317 Conn. 773, 781, 120 A.3d 1188 (2015) (modifying third prong of Golding ). Nonetheless, the Appellate Court admonished law enforcement that the better practice is to clarify such issues at the time of interrogation rather than in after-the-fact arguments before the courts. State v. Purcell , supra, 174 Conn. App. at 428, 440, 166 A.3d 883. The defendant's certified appeal to this court followed.9 **330I

We begin with the line of United States Supreme Court cases that provide the framework for the issues in this appeal. In Davis , the court acknowledged that its precedent had established the following foundational principles: "The [s]ixth [a]mendment right to counsel attaches only at the initiation of adversary criminal proceedings ... and before proceedings are initiated a suspect in a criminal investigation has no constitutional right to the assistance of counsel. Nevertheless, we held in Miranda v. Arizona , 384 U.S. 436, 469-73 [86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694] (1966), that a suspect subject to custodial interrogation has the right to consult with an attorney and to have counsel present during questioning, and that the police must explain this right to him before questioning begins. The right to counsel established in Miranda was one of a series of recommended procedural safeguards ... [that] were not themselves rights protected by the [c]onstitution but were instead measures to [e]nsure that the right against compulsory self-incrimination was protected. Michigan v. Tucker , 417 U.S. 433, 443-44 [94 S.Ct. 2357, 41 L.Ed.2d 182] (1974) ; see U.S. Const., [amend. V ] ( [n]o person ... shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself).

"The right to counsel recognized in Miranda is sufficiently important to suspects in criminal investigations, we have held, that it requir[es] the special protection of the knowing and intelligent waiver standard. Edwards v. Arizona , [451 U.S. 477, 483, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981) ].... If the suspect effectively waives his right to counsel after receiving the Miranda warnings, law enforcement officers are free to question him.... But if a suspect requests counsel at any time during the interview, he is not subject to further questioning until a lawyer has been made available or the suspect himself reinitiates conversation. [

*550Id., at 484-85, 101 S.Ct. 1880 ].

**331This second layer of prophylaxis for the Miranda right to counsel, McNeil v. Wisconsin , 501 U.S. 171, 176 [111 S.Ct. 2204, 115 L.Ed.2d 158] (1991), is designed to prevent police from badgering a defendant into waiving his previously asserted Miranda rights, Michigan v. Harvey , 494 U.S. 344, 350 [110 S.Ct. 1176, 108 L.Ed.2d 293] (1990). To that end, we have held that a suspect who has invoked the right to counsel cannot be questioned regarding any offense unless an attorney is actually present. Minnick v. Mississippi , 498 U.S. 146 [111 S.Ct. 486, 112 L.Ed.2d 489] (1990) ; Arizona v. Roberson , 486 U.S. 675 [108 S.Ct. 2093, 100 L.Ed.2d 704] (1988). It remains clear, however, that this prohibition on further questioning-like other aspects of Miranda -is not itself required by the [f]ifth [a]mendment's prohibition on coerced confessions, but is instead justified only by reference to its prophylactic purpose. Connecticut v. Barrett , [479 U.S. 523, 528, 107 S.Ct. 828, 93 L.Ed.2d 920 (1987) ]." (Citations omitted; footnote omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) Davis v. United States , supra, 512 U.S. at 456-58, 114 S.Ct. 2350.

With regard to how a defendant may invoke this right, in Miranda v. Arizona , supra, 384 U.S. at 444-45, 86 S.Ct. 1602, the Supreme Court stated that if a defendant "indicates in any manner and at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning." (Emphasis added.) In Edwards v. Arizona , supra, 451 U.S. at 484-85, 101 S.Ct. 1880, the court referred to the requisite act by the defendant as "having expressed his desire to deal with the police only through counsel," and as having "clearly asserted his right to counsel ...." The court subsequently noted that the invocation of the Miranda right to counsel "requires, at a minimum, some statement that can reasonably be construed to be an expression of a desire for the assistance of an attorney ...." McNeil v. Wisconsin , supra, 501 U.S. at 178, 111 S.Ct. 2204.

**332Applying this precedent prior to the Supreme Court's 1994 Davis decision, the lower courts were divided on how to treat an ambiguous invocation of this right. Three approaches emerged: one required the immediate cessation of interrogation; one permitted questions limited to clarifying whether the defendant intended to invoke this right; and one permitted interrogation to continue unless a sufficiently clear invocation of the right was made. The second approach-stop and clarify-was adopted by the majority of the many courts to consider the issue. See Davis v. United States , supra, 512 U.S. at 466 and n.1, 114 S.Ct. 2350 (Souter, J., concurring); see also J. Ainsworth, " In a Different Register: The Pragmatics of Powerlessness in Police Interrogation," 103 Yale L.J. 259, 308 and n.254 (1993) (listing cases); S. Goings, comment, " Ambiguous or Equivocal Requests for Counsel in Custodial Interrogations After Davis v. United States ," 81 Iowa L. Rev. 161, 162 n.7 (1995) (same). The Supreme Court acknowledged this divide; see Connecticut v. Barrett , supra, 479 U.S. at 529-30 n.3, 107 S.Ct. 828 ; Smith v. Illinois , 469 U.S. 91, 96 and n.3, 105 S.Ct. 490, 83 L.Ed.2d 488 (1984) ; but found it unnecessary to weigh in until Davis .

In Davis , the petitioner waived his rights to remain silent and to counsel in a military legal proceeding. See Davis v. United States , supra, 512 U.S. at 454-55, 114 S.Ct. 2350. More than one hour into the interview, the petitioner stated, " 'Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.' " Id., at 455, 114 S.Ct. 2350. The interviewing agents then explained that if the petitioner wanted a lawyer, they would stop questioning him, unless he clarified whether he was asking for a lawyer or was just making a comment about a lawyer. Id. In response, *551the petitioner stated, "No, I'm not asking for a lawyer," and then, "No, I don't want a lawyer." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. The interview recommenced, but later the petitioner stated, "I think I want a lawyer before I say anything else." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id. The agents terminated the interview **333at that point. Id. The United States Court of Military Appeals held that the petitioner's statement, " 'Maybe I should talk to a lawyer,' " was an ambiguous invocation of the right to counsel, and that the agents properly clarified the petitioner's wishes before proceeding further. Id., at 456, 114 S.Ct. 2350.

On appeal to the United States Supreme Court, the petitioner contended that an ambiguous invocation is sufficient to invoke Edwards ' prohibition on further questioning, even for purposes of clarification. The court unanimously held that the judgment should be affirmed, but split five to four as to the effect of an ambiguous invocation under the court's precedent. The majority held that, "if a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking the right to counsel, our precedents do not require the cessation of questioning.... Rather, the suspect must unambiguously request counsel.... Although a suspect need not speak with the discrimination of an Oxford don ... he must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney. If the statement fails to meet the requisite level of clarity, Edwards does not require that the officers stop questioning the suspect."10 (Citations omitted; emphasis in **334original; internal quotation marks omitted.) Id., at 459, 114 S.Ct. 2350. Applying this rule, the majority concluded that the remark, " 'Maybe I should talk to a lawyer' ... [i]s not a request for counsel ...." Id., at 462, 114 S.Ct. 2350. The view of the four concurring justices, which we address in further detail in part III of this opinion, was that the court's precedent of many decades supported the stop and clarify rule applied by the Court of Military Appeals. See id., at 466-67, 114 S.Ct. 2350 (Souter, J., concurring).

II

The first certified issue requires us to determine whether the defendant's statements during the interrogation constituted an invocation of his right to counsel under Davis .11 The defendant contends *552that two statements-"See, if my lawyer was here ... then ... we could talk. That's, you know, that's it." And "I'm supposed to have my lawyer here. You know that."-are similar to, and have the same degree of clarity as, statements that other courts have deemed to meet Davis ' standard. We disagree.

Since Davis , a clear, unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel has been found, even after a defendant has waived that right and cooperated to varying degrees with the interrogation, when a defendant has made an affirmative statement of present intent such as the following:

**335" 'Lawyer' " and " 'lawyer, this, this is done' "; United States v. Monroe , 264 F.Supp.3d 376, 388 (D.R.I. 2017) ; " 'right now, what I need to do is sit down and talk to a lawyer first' "; Sykes v. State , 2009 Ark. 522, 357 S.W.3d 882, 890 (2009) ; " 'I answered some questions, but this has affected me, I don't want it to affect me more. What I am saying now is another question; I would need someone to advise me.... More questions for me? Well, I would like to, but I need someone to advise me' "; Jimenez v. State , 2010 Ark. App. 804, 379 S.W.3d 762, 765 (2010), review denied, Arkansas Supreme Court, Docket No. CR10-1298 (January 27, 2011); " 'I'm done talking to you. Go get my lawyer' "; Jennings v. United States , 989 A.2d 1106, 1112 (D.C. 2010) ; Jennings v. United States , supra, at 1112-13 (statements met objective test even if tone might subjectively be viewed as sarcastic); " 'I'd like to have an attorney present during questioning' "; Green v. State , 69 So.3d 351, 352 (Fla. App. 2011) ; " '[T]his is where I want my lawyer' " and " '[o]kay, this is where I would want my attorney involved' "; State v. Person , 140 Idaho 934, 941, 104 P.3d 976 (App. 2004), review denied, Idaho Supreme Court, Docket No. 29517 (December 20, 2004); " 'I'm in a situation where I feel like ... I really need an attorney to ... talk with, and for me' "; Carr v. State , 934 N.E.2d 1096, 1105 (Ind. 2010) ; " '[N]o lawyer, can't talk' " and " 'I can't talk without my lawyer' "; State v. Poullard , 863 So.2d 702, 711 (La. App. 2003), writ denied sub nom. State ex rel. Poullard v. State , 896 So.2d 995 (La. 2005).

When statements regarding the assistance or presence of counsel include one or more conditional or hedging terms, such as if, should, probably, or maybe, courts generally have deemed them ambiguous or equivocal. See, e.g., United States v. Doe , 60 F.3d 544, 546 (9th Cir. 1995) (statement by defendant's mother that " 'maybe he ought to see an attorney' " was not clear, **336unambiguous request for counsel); People v. Sauceda-Contreras , 55 Cal. 4th 203, 219, 145 Cal. Rptr. 3d 271, 282 P.3d 279 (2012) (defendant's statement, " '[i]f you can bring me a lawyer, that way ... I can tell you everything that I know and everything that I need to tell you and someone to represent me,' " was conditional, ambiguous, and equivocal); People v. Gonzalez , 34 Cal. 4th 1111, 1119, 1126, 23 Cal.Rptr.3d 295, 104 P.3d 98 (2005) (statements by defendant-" 'That um, one thing I want to ask you to that, if for anything you guys are going to charge me I want to talk to a public defender too, for any little thing. Because my brother-in-law told me that if they're trying to charge you for this case you might as well talk to a public defender and let him know cause they *553can't [untranslatable]' "-were insufficient), cert. denied, 545 U.S. 1108, 125 S.Ct. 2552, 162 L.Ed.2d 282 (2005) ; People v. Shamblin , 236 Cal. App. 4th 1, 20, 186 Cal.Rptr.3d 257 (2015) (The "defendant's statement-'I think I probably should change my mind about the lawyer now.... I think I need some advice here'-contains language that is conditional ['should'] and equivocal ['I think' and 'probably'].12 ... [T]hese **337ambiguous qualifying words convey to a reasonable officer only that defendant might want to invoke his right to counsel, not that he is unambiguously expressing his desire to terminate the interview." [Footnote added.] ), review denied, California Supreme Court, Docket No. S226608 (July 29, 2015); State v. Morgan , 559 N.W.2d 603, 608 (Iowa 1997) (statement that defendant " 'might need a lawyer' " was insufficient in light of Davis ); State v. Chesson , 856 So.2d 166, 173-75 (La. App. 2003) (statement to police officers while being transported that "he might-he felt like he should talk to an attorney" was equivocal and ambiguous), writ denied, 867 So.2d 686 (La. 2004) ; Commonwealth v. Molina , 81 Mass. App. 855, 863, 867, 969 N.E.2d 738 (2012) (The defendant's statements-" 'truly, if I had known that this would be like this, I honestly would have brought an attorney because I truly don't even know what has happened; I haven't been informed of what has happened and I am being questioned about, really, I mean, it's like my rights are being violated because I am being questioned on something that I truly don't know' "-were ambiguous. "Although [the defendant] mentioned an attorney, he did not request one going forward. He said that he would have brought an attorney."), aff'd, 467 Mass. 65, 3 N.E.3d 583 (2014) ; Davis v. State , 313 S.W.3d 317, 341 (Tex. Crim. App. 2010) (statement, " 'I should have an attorney,' " was ambiguous because " 'should' could simply mean that [the] appellant believed having an attorney was in his best interests"), cert. denied, 565 U.S. 828, 132 S.Ct. 122, 181 L.Ed.2d 45 (2011).

Statements referring to counsel's advice that the defendant not speak to the police, if made after the defendant has agreed to waive his right to counsel, also have been deemed not to be an unambiguous invocation **338of the right to have counsel present. Compare *554People v. Thompson , 50 Cal. 3d 134, 165, 266 Cal.Rptr. 309, 785 P.2d 857 (defendant's statements-" 'I don't even think I should be talking now.... [My public defender told me] not to say nothin' about the case or anything, unless I had a lawyer present.... And I agreed with him' " and " '[y]ou know, and, like I'm just going to go with what, you know, what the lawyer said because I .... What else can I say, well, really. I don't want to see [my girlfriend] here [in jail]' "-were not even an equivocal assertion of right to counsel, but only an explanation of why he was willing to proceed without counsel), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 881, 111 S.Ct. 226, 112 L.Ed.2d 180 (1990), and State v. Long , 190 Wis.2d 386, 397, 526 N.W.2d 826 (App. 1994) (" 'My attorney told me I shouldn't talk unless he is here,' was not a clear assertion of [the defendant's] desire to have counsel present. Rather, it was an indication of what [his] attorney told him not to do."), with United States v. Cheely , 36 F.3d 1439, 1448 (9th Cir. 1994) (defendant's statement that " 'my attorney does not want me to talk to you,' " in tandem with refusal to sign written waiver of right to attorney form, was unambiguous request for counsel), and Lucas v. State , 273 Ga. 88, 90, 538 S.E.2d 44 (2000) (defendant's statements prior to provision of Miranda rights-" '[M]y lawyer told me, the one I talked to, not to say nothing' " and " '[m]y attorney told me not to answer nothing' "-plainly demonstrated defendant's concern about being questioned without benefit of counsel, and reasonable police officer would have understood statements to be request for counsel to be present during questioning).13

Statements that could be interpreted as an expression of the defendant's reservation about whether speaking **339to the police without counsel is in his best interest also have been deemed not to express a clear, unequivocal invocation of the right to have counsel present. See, e.g., Sykes v. State , supra, 357 S.W.3d at 891 (defendant's statements-" 'I don't feel like that I need to be discussing this at all,' 'I think it's really plumb ignorant to answer any questions right now,' " and " 'the best thing I can do is, for myself, is to shut the hell up and not talk about this without first talking to a lawyer' "-did not unambiguously and unequivocally indicate right to remain silent or right to counsel when defendant evidenced awareness of his Miranda rights and continued to talk to officer even though he knew it was against his best interest); Midkiff v. Commonwealth , 250 Va. 262, 267, 462 S.E.2d 112 (1995) (defendant's "statement, 'I'm scared to say anything without talking to a lawyer,' expresses [the defendant's] reservation about the wisdom of continuing the interrogation without consulting a lawyer; however, it does not clearly and unambiguously communicate a desire to invoke his right to counsel").

With this background in mind, we turn to the statements in the present case on which the defendant relies. See State v. Anonymous , 240 Conn. 708, 723, 694 A.2d 766 (1997) (whether defendant invoked right to counsel is question of law, reviewed de novo). We agree with the defendant that a police officer reasonably could interpret his statements as an invocation of his right to counsel. More specifically, his statements reasonably could be interpreted as a request to have his attorney present if the officers wanted him to discuss the specific incidents giving rise to the charges. A defendant may make a *555limited invocation of the right to counsel. See Connecticut v. Barrett , supra, 479 U.S. at 529, 107 S.Ct. 828 (concluding that court could give effect to both defendant's unambiguous expression of desire to have counsel present before making written statement and unambiguous waiver of rights to remain silent and to have counsel present for oral statement). **340However, the statements also are reasonably amenable to a different interpretation. The defendant's first statement, "if my lawyer was here," is expressed in conditional terms, about a matter over which the defendant was given control. The defendant's second statement refers to what he is "supposed to" do, which refers to the expectations of another, most likely his attorney. The existence of such expectations would be consistent with the defendant's preceding remarks. In those remarks, the defendant explained that he had declined to speak with the Department of Children and Families about the allegations only on his attorney's advice, even though the defendant himself believed that his interests would have been better served had he spoken to the department. As such, the statements on which the defendant relies to establish his invocation of his right to counsel reasonably could be interpreted as an effort to explain that his hesitation to speak about the allegations reflected his attorney's advice rather than his own preferences. Cf. Commonwealth v. Molina , supra, 81 Mass. App. at 867, 969 N.E.2d 738 ("[t]he passage reads as though the defendant was using the specter of his rights as a way to control the interview: not asserting the rights, but mentioning them in order to avoid specific questions that he did not want to answer"); State v. Long , supra, 190 Wis. 2d at 397, 526 N.W.2d 826 (statement that defendant's attorney told him not to talk unless attorney was present was not clear assertion of defendant's desire to have counsel present but indication of his attorney's advice). The officers' response can be seen as consistent with that interpretation, insofar as they underscored that it was up to the defendant, not his attorney, to decide whether he would answer their questions.14 **341The final phrase spoken by the defendant in this connection-"You know that"-added to the ambiguity. The officers undoubtedly knew that the defendant had a right to have counsel present. But they also knew, based on the defendant's statements, that the defendant previously had been advised by counsel not to discuss the incidents in question. Accordingly, because the statements at issue cannot be considered a clear and unequivocal invocation of his right to counsel, we conclude that the Appellate Court properly determined that the defendant's statements were not the type of expression necessary under Davis to require interrogation to cease.

III

We therefore turn to the second certified question, which requires us to decide whether the Appellate Court properly determined that article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution does not require the police to stop and clarify an ambiguous or equivocal request for the presence of counsel. Although we appreciate the Appellate Court's thoughtful analysis of the factors that guide the resolution of such a question, we conclude that countervailing considerations, not taken into *556account in that analysis, compel a different result.

It is well settled that the federal constitution sets the floor, not the ceiling, on individual rights. See State v. Baccala , 326 Conn. 232, 268, 163 A.3d 1, 23, cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 510, 199 L.Ed.2d 408 (2017). "[I]n determining the contours of the protections provided by our state constitution, we employ a multifactor approach that we first adopted in [ State v. Geisler , 222 Conn. 672, 685, 610 A.2d 1225 (1992) ]. The factors that we consider are (1) the text of the relevant constitutional provisions; (2) related Connecticut precedents; (3) persuasive federal precedents; (4) persuasive precedents of other state courts; (5) historical insights into **342the intent of [the] constitutional [framers]; and (6) contemporary understandings of applicable economic and sociological norms [otherwise described as public policies]." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Taupier , 330 Conn. 149, 175, 193 A.3d 1 (2018) ; see also State v. Jenkins , 298 Conn. 209, 262, 3 A.3d 806 (2010) (recognizing that these factors "may be inextricably interwoven [and] [n]ot every [such] factor is relevant in all cases" ( [internal quotation marks omitted] ).15

It is important to underscore that the question before us is not whether our state constitution provides a broader constitutional right than that afforded under the federal constitution. Cf. State v. Asherman , 193 Conn. 695, 711-15, 478 A.2d 227 (1984) (declining to construe right against compelled self-incrimination in article first, § 8, to extend to all nontestimonial evidence so as to preclude compelling defendant to submit to dental impressions), cert. denied, 470 U.S. 1050, 105 S.Ct. 1749, 84 L.Ed.2d 814 (1985). Instead, the issue we decide is whether to adopt an additional layer of prophylaxis to prevent a significant risk of deprivation of those vital constitutional rights protected under Miranda . See State v. Dickson , 322 Conn. 410, 426 n.11, 141 A.3d 810 (2016) ("it is well established that courts have the duty not only to craft remedies for actual constitutional violations, but also to craft prophylactic constitutional rules to prevent the significant risk of a constitutional violation" [emphasis omitted] ), cert. denied, --- U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 2263, 198 L.Ed.2d 713 (2017) ; see also C. Rogers, " Putting Meat on Constitutional Bones: The Authority of State Courts To Craft Constitutional Prophylactic Rules Under the Federal Constitution," 98 B.U. L. Rev. 541, 545 (2018) (former **343chief justice of Connecticut Supreme Court explaining nature and purpose of court's power to adopt prophylactic rules). As another court aptly observed, "adoption of a different procedural safeguard than that prescribed by the [United States Supreme] Court is not even, in the strictest sense, a matter of constitutional interpretation. The Miranda right to counsel is not a right found in the [f]ifth [a]mendment, but instead a prophylactic rule fashioned by the [c]ourt to protect the right against coerced confessions." State v. Risk , 598 N.W.2d 642, 649 (Minn. 1999) ; see also A. Leavens, " Prophylactic Rules and State Constitutionalism," 44 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 415, 415 (2011) (arguing that, "even if states ought to defer to the Supreme Court concerning the meaning of cognate constitutional provisions, such deference is not required in considering the reach of prophylactic rules"); T. Saylor, " *557Prophylaxis in Modern State Constitutionalism: New Judicial Federalism and the Acknowledged, Prophylactic Rule," 59 N.Y.U. Ann. Surv. Am. L. 283, 308-309 (2003) (Pennsylvania Supreme Court justice arguing that "there is stronger justification for the employment of prophylactic rules to safeguard individual liberties from government intrusion by state as opposed to federal courts [because] one of the primary barriers to the United States Supreme Court's implementation of prophylactic rules--federalism--militates in favor of their consideration in state court. Simply put, the problem of over-inclusive Supreme Court rulemaking intruding into matters of state criminal law does not operate at the state level." [Footnote omitted.] ). Accordingly, the nature of the question before us will inform our consideration of the Geisler factors.16 Cf. **344State v. Santiago , 318 Conn. 1, 18 n.14, 122 A.3d 1 (2015) ("In some of our decisions, we have utilized the multifactor Geisler analysis to flesh out the general nature and parameters of the state constitutional provision at issue. Having done so, we proceeded to resolve the appellant's particular constitutional challenge according to the legal test and framework relevant and suited to that area of the law, rather than performing the substantive legal analysis under the somewhat artificial auspices of the six Geisler factors.").

With regard to the first of those factors, the constitutional text, this court previously has recognized that the text of the due process and self-incrimination clauses in article first, § 8, of our state constitution; see footnote 2 of this opinion; is not materially different from the **345corresponding clauses of the federal constitution. See State v. Lockhart , 298 Conn. 537, 551, 4 A.3d 1176 (2010) ; State v. Ledbetter , 275 Conn. 534, 562, 881 A.2d 290 (2005) (overruled in part on other grounds by *558State v. Harris , 330 Conn. 91, 131, 191 A.3d 119 [2018] ), cert. denied, 547 U.S. 1082, 126 S. Ct. 1798, 164 L.Ed. 2d 537 (2006) ; State v. Asherman , supra, 193 Conn. at 712, 715, 478 A.2d 227. This court has also recognized, however, that the due process concerns that operate at the intersection between the right to counsel and the privilege against self-incrimination may require greater protection than that afforded by the federal constitution under some circumstances. In State v. Stoddard , 206 Conn. 157, 160, 164-72, 537 A.2d 446 (1988), this court declined to follow a recently decided United States Supreme Court case holding that efforts by counsel to contact an incustody suspect have no bearing on the validity of that suspect's waiver of his Miranda rights. In reaching that conclusion, we relied on the fact that Connecticut "has had a long history of recognizing the significance of the right to counsel, even before that right attained federal constitutional importance." Id., at 164, 537 A.2d 446.

Importantly for present purposes, this court explained the significance of that history to be as follows: "While this history specifically illuminates the right to counsel that attaches after the initiation of adversary judicial proceedings, it also informs the due process concerns raised by police interference with counsel's access to a custodial suspect. Cf. State v. Ferrell , 191 Conn. 37, 42 n.5, 463 A.2d 573 (1983).17 In **346recently reiterating that Miranda warnings are independently required under the due process clause of article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution; State v. Barrett , 205 Conn. 437, 447, 534 A.2d 219 (1987) ; we recognized, once again, the unique ability of counsel to protect the rights of a client undergoing, or confronting the imminent possibility of, interrogation. Id., at 447-48, 534 A.2d 219, quoting Fare v. Michael C. , 442 U.S. 707, 719, 99 S.Ct. 2560, 61 L.Ed.2d 197 (1979)....

"This recognition is in service of the traditional belief that an accused may be convicted only if exacting measures have been taken to [en]sure that the accused has been treated with the most scrupulous fairness by law enforcement officials. State v. Ferrell , supra, [191 Conn. at] 41 [463 A.2d 573]. Because counsel is uniquely prepared to assist a suspect in making an intelligent and knowing decision whether to speak or stand mute, we have concluded that questioning of a suspect must cease once a clear request for counsel has been made. State v. Acquin , 187 Conn. 647, 667, 448 A.2d 163 (1982), cert. denied, 463 U.S. 1229, 103 S.Ct. 3570, 77 L.Ed.2d 1411 (1983). The decision in Miranda v. Arizona , supra, [384 U.S. at] 444 [86 S.Ct. 1602], itself the benchmark in this area of law, required fully effective means of ensuring a suspect's continuous right of access to counsel." (Citation omitted; footnote added; internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Stoddard , supra, 206 Conn. at 166, 537 A.2d 446.

This court's concern in Stoddard about police interference with access to counsel in this setting echoes the problem of allowing a police officer to press forward with interrogation in the face of a statement that a suspect reasonably believes to be an *559invocation of his right to have counsel present.18 We find it significant in **347this regard that, in reliance on Miranda and its progeny, this court endorsed the stop and clarify rule and followed it for more than a decade prior to Davis . See State v. Anderson , 209 Conn. 622, 627-28, 553 A.2d 589 (1989) ; State v. Barrett , supra, 205 Conn. at 448, 534 A.2d 219 ; State v. Acquin , supra, 187 Conn. at 674-75, 448 A.2d 163. We reached this determination based on our conclusion that this rule was compelled under Supreme Court precedent. See State v. Acquin , supra, at 675, 448 A.2d 163 (noting origin of stop and clarify rule in Fifth Circuit case law and concluding that Supreme Court's decision in " **348Edwards v. Arizona , [supra, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880 ] must be read to include this commonsense Fifth Circuit rule, which was implicitly approved by the majority, and specifically stated in Justice Powell's concurring opinion" [emphasis added] ).

Since Davis , our appellate courts have not considered whether they would follow its modified legal standard as a matter of state constitutional law. This court did summarily reject an argument that the stop and clarify rule should apply to pre waiver statements as a matter of state constitutional law, premised on an assumption that Davis would control post waiver statements under our constitution. See State v. Hafford , 252 Conn. 274, 294 n.15, 746 A.2d 150, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 855, 121 S.Ct. 136, 148 L.Ed.2d 89 (2000). Putting aside the difference in the claim presented, it is well settled that, in the absence of a complete and proper constitutional analysis, we would not follow such a *560determination but, rather, assess the matter anew under the requisite analytical process. See, e.g., State v. Patel , 327 Conn. 932, 939-40, 171 A.3d 1037 (2017) ; State v. Piorkowski , 243 Conn. 205, 214, 700 A.2d 1146 (1997) ; State v. Barton , 219 Conn. 529, 538-40, 594 A.2d 917 (1991).

Although this court has not previously addressed the precise question presently before us, many other jurisdictions have considered whether Davis should be followed under their state constitutions or common-law analogue. The numbers weigh in favor of the state's position, by approximately a two to one margin.19 See **349State v. Purcell , supra, 174 Conn. App. at 435-36 and n.16, 166 A.3d 883 (citing cases). Six jurisdictions that have reached this question have concluded that Davis should not be followed as a matter of state law.20 A seventh, West Virginia, strongly suggested *561that it would do so when the **350question was presented; see footnote 19 of this opinion; and other jurisdictions have found other ways to minimize the potential harshness of the Davis rule.21 Ultimately, however, our concern is not the numerical tally of states but the persuasiveness of the decisions in those states. See State v. Dickson , supra, 322 Conn. at 431, 141 A.3d 810 ("We recognize that a number of courts have concluded otherwise. Nevertheless, we conclude that this is an issue for which the arc of logic trumps the weight of authority."); State v. Jenkins , supra, 298 Conn. at 262, 3 A.3d 806 ("a proper Geisler analysis does not require us simply to tally and follow the decisions favoring one party's state constitutional claim; a deeper review of those decisions' underpinnings is required because we follow only persuasive decisions" [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

A review of these cases reveals that, in large measure, they simply endorse the reasoning of the majority or concurring opinion in Davis ; see, e.g., State v. Owen , 696 So.2d 715, 719 (Fla.) (finding reasoning of Davis majority persuasive), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 1002, 118 S.Ct. 574, 139 L.Ed.2d 413 (1997) ; State v. Hoey , 77 Haw. 17, 36, 881 P.2d 504 (1994) (adopting reasoning of Davis concurrence); rely on the soundness of the rule adopted in that jurisdiction before Davis ; see, e.g., Steckel v. State , 711 A.2d 5, 10-11 (Del. 1998) (following **351clarification approach); Downey v. State , 144 So.3d 146, 151 (Miss. 2014) (same); or both; see, e.g., State v. Chew , 150 N.J. 30, 63, 695 A.2d 1301 (1997) ("[g]iven the narrow balance for the Davis majority's analysis, we believe it prudent to continue to apply our [stop and clarify] precedent"). We therefore independently consider the merits of Davis .

Before we commence that process, we explain why it is appropriate to undertake such a review. Since this court adopted Geisler , we generally have assumed that the federal precedent factor weighs against the defendant if the United States Supreme Court has squarely decided the issue to the contrary under the federal constitution; see, e.g., State v. Piorkowski , supra, 243 Conn. at 216, 700 A.2d 1146 ; or the federal courts are unanimous that the court would reach such a decision. See, e.g., State v. Lockhart , supra, 298 Conn. at 550 and n.6, 4 A.3d 1176 ; State v. Ledbetter , supra, 275 Conn. at 561, 881 A.2d 290. We have not considered the merits of the on point decision itself. However, there are compelling reasons to reconsider that approach, at least as applied to the circumstances of the present case. When, as in the present case, the issue to be decided is largely policy driven, it seems highly appropriate to consider the soundness of the policy rationale supporting the Supreme Court's decision.22 See, e.g., *562**352State v. Stoddard , supra, 206 Conn. at 168-71, 537 A.2d 446 (in pre- Geisler decision, this court examined objections to rule requiring police to inform defendant of counsel's efforts to communicate with suspect articulated in United States Supreme Court's decision rejecting rule to determine whether rule should be adopted under our state constitution). Indeed, as we previously noted, many of our sister states have rested their decisions solely on that basis. Moreover, if the Supreme Court decision under consideration results in a significant departure from precedent that this court has followed, as in this instance, this court has the responsibility to examine the Supreme Court's reasons for doing so to aid us in our determination as to whether we should invoke the state constitution to stay the course or follow the Supreme Court and adopt the change. See, e.g., State v. Marsala , 216 Conn. 150, 160-69, 579 A.2d 58 (1990) (pre- Geisler decision in which court examined soundness of reasons articulated in United States Supreme Court's decision adopting good faith exception to exclusionary rule to determine whether rule is incompatible with our state constitution). In addition, if the factual assumptions or legal underpinnings of a prior decision have been materially undermined by events since the Supreme Court considered the matter, it is appropriate for us to reconsider the merits of the decision. Although we could address many of these matters under other Geisler factors, particularly, economic and sociological considerations, we conclude that the more logical approach is to consider the merits of a policy driven Supreme Court decision separate from other policy considerations.

In doing so, we consider whether the underpinnings of the Supreme Court's decision are so flawed or inconsistent with this state's case law or public policies that the decision should not be followed as a matter of state law. Cf.

**353State v. Cardenas-Alvarez , 130 N.M. 386, 391, 25 P.3d 225 (2001) (recognizing that state court may diverge from federal constitutional precedent in interpreting analogous provision of state constitution if, among other reasons, there is " 'a flawed federal analysis' "); Morris v. Brandenburg , 356 P.3d 564, 573 (N.M. App. 2015) (citing state cases rejecting United States Supreme Court decisions that had been widely criticized as weakening right " 'beyond a point which may be countenanced under our state constitution,' " or as " 'unpersuasive and incompatible with state constitutional standards,' " or that had been criticized in legal literature as " 'devoid of a reasoned basis in constitutional doctrine' "), aff'd, 376 P.3d 836 (N.M. 2016).

As we previously indicated, Davis was decided by a five to four margin. See Davis v. United States , supra, 512 U.S. at 452, 114 S.Ct. 2350. The majority viewed the standard it articulated to be consistent with the court's precedent. Id., at 458-60, 114 S.Ct. 2350. However, prior to Davis , this court had interpreted the court's precedent as endorsing the stop and clarify rule. See *563State v. Acquin , supra, 187 Conn. at 674-75, 448 A.2d 163. This means that we agreed with the interpretation of the court's precedent articulated by the Davis concurrence. See Davis v. United States , supra, 467-70, 114 S.Ct. 2350 (Souter, J., concurring). Consistent with that view, this court itself subsequently characterized Davis as a change in the law, in that it "narrowed" the holding in Miranda "that when an accused person 'indicates in any manner at any stage of the process that he wishes to consult with an attorney before speaking there can be no questioning,' and the police must stop the interrogation." State v. Anonymous , supra, 240 Conn. at 720, 694 A.2d 766. The fact that Davis narrowed constitutional safeguards deemed by this court to be of "independent" significance under our state constitution; see State v. Barrett , supra, 205 Conn. at 447, 534 A.2d 219 ; State v. Ferrell , supra, 191 Conn. at 45 n.12, 463 A.2d 573 ; weighs against following Davis in the absence of countervailing considerations. **354The Davis majority also justified its rule in relation to the two sides of the Miranda equation-balancing the need to protect suspects from an inherently coercive interrogation environment against the need for effective law enforcement. See Davis v. United States , supra, 512 U.S. at 460-61, 114 S.Ct. 2350. With regard to the suspect's side of the equation, the Davis majority recognized that "requiring a clear assertion of the right to counsel might disadvantage some suspects who-because of fear, intimidation, lack of linguistic skills, or a variety of other reasons-will not clearly articulate their right to counsel although they actually want to have a lawyer present. " (Emphasis added.) Id., at 460, 114 S.Ct. 2350. Nonetheless, it reasoned that "the primary protection afforded suspects subject to custodial interrogation is the Miranda warnings themselves. [F]ull comprehension of the rights to remain silent and request an attorney [is] sufficient to dispel whatever coercion is inherent in the interrogation process." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) Id.

There are at least three flaws with this logic. The first flaw is that it incorrectly assumes that all suspects fully comprehend their Miranda rights and the effect of invoking them. Despite the ubiquity of Miranda warnings in television dramas that may lead the public to believe that everyone knows their rights, the evidence gathered since Davis is to the contrary. See generally D. Dearborn, " ' You Have the Right to an Attorney,' but Not Right Now: Combating Miranda 's Failure by Advancing the Point of Attachment Under Article XII of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights," 44 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 359, 364-87 (2011) ; R. Rogers et al., " 'Everyone Knows Their Miranda Rights': Implicit Assumptions and Countervailing Evidence," 16 Psychol. Pub. Policy & L. 300, 307-311 (2010); R. Rogers et al., " The Language of Miranda Warnings in American Jurisdictions: A Replication and Vocabulary Analysis," 32 Law & Hum. Behav. 124 (2008) (analyzing verbal comprehension **355of Miranda warnings). "[S]ocial science has demonstrated that suspects do not have a full appreciation of either their rights or the effect of a waiver when they choose to speak to the police.... Social science has also found a disparity between the reading level required to comprehend the Miranda warnings and the reading levels of suspects who are expected to understand the warnings on their own. The evidence proves many warnings demand a greater educational background than many suspects possess.... Even assuming a custodial suspect understands the literal meaning of the words contained in the warnings, the constitutional principles embedded in those words are far from obvious. This unfortunate dynamic disproportionately *564impacts vulnerable populations, including juveniles, the disabled, and individuals for whom English is not their first language. Yet even the [well educated] have difficulty understanding their Miranda warnings." (Footnotes omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) D. Dearborn, supra, 373-75.

Beyond that, the question of whether suspects understand their Miranda rights is largely distinct from the question of whether they know the unequivocal manner in which they would have to exercise those rights to give them effect, a piece of significant information that is not shared with them when they are given the warnings or before they are asked to waive their rights. With regard to the particular concern in the present case, although Davis requires a suspect to invoke his right to counsel clearly and unequivocally, almost 70 percent of defendants questioned in one study had no appreciation for the precision required to request counsel and stop interrogation.23 See R. Rogers et al., supra, 16 Psychol.

**356Pub. Policy & L. 308 (defendants agreeing that, in seeking legal assistance, it means the same thing if you say, " 'I want a lawyer,' " or " 'I might want a lawyer' "); see also R. Rogers, "A Little Knowledge Is a Dangerous Thing ... Emerging Miranda Research and Professional Roles for Psychologists," 63 Am. Psychologist 776, 777 (2008) (conservatively estimating that 318,000 suspects waive all their Miranda rights annually while failing to comprehend even 50 percent of representative Miranda warnings).

The second flaw in the Davis majority's logic is expressly acknowledged-that the underinclusiveness of its rule would disadvantage those individuals who are most likely to be subject to the very coercive pressures against which Miranda was intended to protect. See Davis v. United States , supra, 512 U.S. at 470 n.4, 114 S.Ct. 2350 (Souter, J., concurring) ("Social science confirms what common sense would suggest, that individuals who feel intimidated or powerless are more likely to speak in equivocal or nonstandard terms when no ambiguity or equivocation is meant. See W. O'Barr, Linguistic Evidence: Language, Power, and Strategy in the Courtroom [1982] 61-71 ...."). The Davis majority rule is akin to providing fewer life preservers to passengers on board a boat who cannot swim or have conditions that make swimming difficult than to those without such impairments.

A third, related flaw involves the Davis majority's failure to appreciate that its rule would disproportionately disadvantage certain suspect or quasi-suspect classes, who more commonly rely on indirect speech patterns.24 "Sociolinguistic research *565has demonstrated **357that discrete segments of the population-particularly women and ethnic minorities-are far more likely than others to adopt indirect speech patterns." J. Ainsworth, supra, 103 Yale L.J. 261; see also id., 317-18 ("[O]ne researcher has observed that indirect speech patterns are common within African-American spoken language. In his pragmatic analysis of Black English, Thurmon Garner described what he termed a 'strategy of indirection' by speakers as a linguistic mechanism to avoid conflict." [Footnotes omitted.] ). For example, hedges in speech, such as "I think," "I suppose," "maybe," or "perhaps," may be used to convey either that the speaker is uncertain about the statement or that the speaker prefers not to confront the addressee with a bald assertion. See id., 276. As we observed in part II of this opinion, hedges are one type of such indirect speech that commonly is treated as equivocation or ambiguity under Davis .

With regard to the other side of the Miranda equation, the Davis majority reasoned that its rule was necessary for effective law enforcement. It posited that "if we were to require questioning to cease if a suspect makes a statement that might be a request for an attorney ... [p]olice officers would be forced to make difficult judgment calls about whether the suspect in fact wants a lawyer even though he has not said so, with the threat of suppression if they guess wrong." (Emphasis omitted.) Davis v. United States , supra, 512 U.S. at 461, 114 S.Ct. 2350. This reasoning is premised on a false choice, between requiring an unambiguous invocation of the right to counsel and permitting an ambiguous invocation of that **358right to require the termination of interrogation. The court ignores that the stop and clarify approach provides a sensible middle ground, allowing law enforcement to dispel ambiguity and avoid guesswork as to the suspect's actual intent. See Davis v. United States , United States Supreme Court Briefs, October Term, 1993, Government's Brief, p. 24 ("[t]he 'clarification' rule has the simple virtue of permitting the officer to solve that dilemma by seeking further information to ascertain the suspect's choice").

The Davis majority's disregard of the stop and clarify approach in considering the needs of law enforcement is particularly difficult to understand in light of the position taken by the government and law enforcement amici in that very case. The government and the amici curiae Americans for Effective Law Enforcement, Inc., International Association of Chiefs of Police, Inc., National District Attorneys Association, Inc., and National Sheriffs' Association all urged the court to adopt the stop and clarify rule, asserting that it struck the appropriate balance between the rights of suspects and the needs of law enforcement.25 See Davis v. United States , supra, 512 U.S. at 467 n.2, 114 S.Ct. 2350 (Souter, J., concurring). The fact that a majority of jurisdictions had applied such a rule for many years before Davis suggests that there was an ample body of practical experience on which the amici could base their position.

The Davis majority did concede that a stop and clarify approach often would be "good police practice."

*566Id., at 461, 114 S.Ct. 2350. Of course, that fact, in and of itself, would not compel such a practice as constitutionally mandated. See **359United States v. Kahn , 415 U.S. 143, 155 n.15, 94 S.Ct. 977, 39 L.Ed.2d 225 (1974) (in fourth amendment context, police officers need not follow best practice in order for search to pass constitutional muster); State v. Marquez , 291 Conn. 122, 145, 967 A.2d 56 (test for determining whether identification procedure is unnecessarily suggestive "is not a 'best practices' test" [emphasis in original] ), cert. denied, 558 U.S. 895, 130 S.Ct. 237, 175 L.Ed.2d 163 (2009). Nonetheless, the majority's concession undermines its supposition that a more protective rule would unduly hamper effective law enforcement.

In sum, we find the reasoning of the Davis majority to lack a sound basis in legal doctrine or law enforcement objectives. For the reasons that follow, we also conclude that policy considerations that the Davis majority was not fully aware of, or did not acknowledge, support the more protective stop and clarify rule.

The prophylactic rules adopted in Miranda and Edwards were intended as a countermeasure against the inherently coercive nature of custodial interrogations. See Miranda v. Arizona , supra, 384 U.S. at 457-58, 86 S.Ct. 1602 ("It is obvious that such an interrogation environment is created for no purpose other than to subjugate the individual to the will of his examiner. This atmosphere carries its own badge of intimidation.... Unless adequate protective devices are employed to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings, no statement obtained from the defendant can truly be the product of his free choice." [Footnote omitted.] ); Michigan v. Harvey , supra, 494 U.S. at 350, 110 S.Ct. 1176 (" Edwards thus established another prophylactic rule designed to prevent police from badgering a defendant into waiving his previously asserted Miranda rights"). However, there is reason to question whether these rules have proved adequate to the task. See generally D. Dearborn, supra, 44 Suffolk U. L. Rev. 364-87. As we previously noted, studies show that many people do not have an **360accurate understanding of the protections afforded under Miranda or the manner for, and consequences of, invoking those rights. In addition, as one commentator has observed, "[w]hat the [United States Supreme] Court did not (and perhaps could not) realize was that the forms of psychological coercion it sought to address would simply be refined and replaced with equally sinister forms of manipulation." Id., 364-65. This problem has been exacerbated by the holding in Davis . By permitting interrogation to continue in the face of an ambiguous invocation of the right to counsel, the police officers faced with such an invocation have been emboldened to employ a wide range of tactics designed to deflect suspects from clearly invoking their right to an attorney. See W. White, " Deflecting a Suspect from Requesting an Attorney," 68 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 29, 31, 41 (2006) (noting that most lower courts have interpreted Davis to allow interrogators to employ such tactics).

The court in Miranda explained that the purpose of the warnings is to "show the individual that his interrogators are prepared to recognize his privilege should he choose to exercise it." Miranda v. Arizona , supra, 384 U.S. at 468, 86 S.Ct. 1602. However, by allowing the police to continue interrogating a suspect who has made a statement that he reasonably believes to be a request to have counsel present, the suspect reasonably would infer that the police do not intend to recognize his privilege. See Davis v. United States , supra, 512 U.S. at 472-73, 114 S.Ct. 2350 (Souter, J., concurring). Such a reasonable inference might not only dissuade subsequent *567efforts to renew that privilege, but also deter attempts to invoke other privileges. By contrast, as one commentator observed, "properly administered and narrowly limited questions designed to discern a suspect's intent will not likely be viewed as coercive. In fact, it is more likely that such questions will impress upon the individual that the police are prepared to honor his choice but must first determine **361whether a choice has been made." (Footnote omitted.) W. Holly, " Ambiguous Invocations of the Right To Remain Silent: A Post-Davis Analysis and Proposal," 29 Seton Hall L. Rev. 558, 590-91 (1998).

The court in Miranda also recognized the possibility of a coercive custodial interrogation resulting in a false confession. See Miranda v. Arizona , supra, 384 U.S. at 447, 455 n.24, 86 S.Ct. 1602. The magnitude of this problem, however, was not known then, or even at the time Davis was decided. See Lapointe v. Commissioner of Correction , 316 Conn. 225, 326, 112 A.3d 1 (2015) (discussing role of social science research and advent of DNA testing in revealing scope of phenomenon); see also State v. Perea , 322 P.3d 624, 641 (Utah 2013) ("[i]n the 1990s, little research had been conducted on the phenomenon of false confessions"). Since Davis , the Supreme Court has recognized that "the pressure of custodial interrogation is so immense that it can induce a frighteningly high percentage of people to confess to crimes they never committed. Corley v. United States , 556 U.S. 303, 321 [129 S.Ct. 1558, 173 L.Ed.2d 443] (2009)...." (Citations omitted; internal quotation marks omitted.) J.D.B. v. North Carolina , 564 U.S. 261, 269, 131 S.Ct. 2394, 180 L.Ed.2d 310 (2011). Imposing an additional prophylactic measure may assist a system of criminal justice to prevent such results, without unduly hampering legitimate law enforcement efforts. See State v. Francis , 322 Conn. 247, 266, 140 A.3d 927 (2016) ("[t]he value of any prophylactic rule ... must be assessed not only on the basis of what is gained, but also on the basis of what is lost" [internal quotation marks omitted] ).

Recognizing that the promises that dwell within Miranda can only be achieved by honoring the premises upon which it rests, we determine that there are compelling reasons to conclude that Davis ' standard does not adequately safeguard Miranda 's right to the advice of **362counsel during a custodial interrogation. We therefore hold that, consistent with our precedent and the majority rule that governed prior to Davis , our state constitution requires that, "if a suspect makes an equivocal statement that arguably can be construed as a request for counsel, interrogation must cease except for narrow questions designed to clarify the earlier statement and the suspect's desire for counsel." (Internal quotation marks omitted.) State v. Anderson , supra, 209 Conn. at 627-28, 553 A.2d 589. Interrogators confronted with such a situation alternatively may inform the defendant that they understand his statement(s) to mean that he does not wish to speak with them without counsel present and that they will terminate the interrogation. In either case, if the defendant thereafter clearly and unequivocally expresses a desire to continue without counsel present, the interrogation may resume. See, e.g., State v. Acquin , supra, 187 Conn. at 660, 669-70, 448 A.2d 163 (after defendant indicated that he wanted attorney and further clarification was sought, defendant later stated that "it wasn't really an attorney that he wanted," just someone he could trust, and asked for psychiatrist who worked with prisoners at his jail to be present).

Applying that standard to the present case, we conclude that the defendant's *568rights under article first, § 8, of the Connecticut constitution were violated when the police officers continued to question him after the defendant ambiguously invoked his right to have counsel present. The officers' response did not seek clarification of the defendant's intent. Rather, they attempted to convince the defendant that it was against his interests not to continue the interview. See United States v. March , 999 F.2d 456, 461-62 (10th Cir.) ("clarifying questions must be purely ministerial, not adversarial, and cannot be designed to influence the subject not to invoke his rights"), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 983, 114 S.Ct. 483, 126 L.Ed.2d 434 (1993) ; **363Thompson v. Wainwright , 601 F.2d 768, 772 (5th Cir. 1979) ("the limited inquiry permissible after an equivocal request for legal counsel may not take the form of an argument between interrogators and suspect about whether having counsel would be in the suspect's best interests").

The state makes no argument in its brief to this court that this constitutional violation was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See, e.g., State v. Newton , 330 Conn. 344, 353, 194 A.3d 272 (2018) (if defendant demonstrates that constitutional violation exists, defendant is entitled to prevail unless state proves that violation was harmless beyond reasonable doubt). Instead, it contends that suppression is not required on the grounds that (1) the sanction of exclusion does not apply because the police conducted themselves in objectively reasonable reliance on binding judicial precedent, and there is no claim that the statements were involuntary or untrustworthy, and (2) the police substantially complied with the stop and clarify rule and, in doing so, did not coerce or intimidate him. We are not persuaded by any of these contentions.

Prior to our decision today, it was an open question whether this court would require a more protective rule under our state constitution. See State v. Pinder , 250 Conn. 385, 417, 736 A.2d 857 (1999) (finding it unnecessary to reach defendant's claim that state constitution requires police to ask clarifying questions when its federal counterpart does not); State v. Anonymous , supra, 240 Conn. at 717 n.11, 694 A.2d 766 (declining to reach claim under state constitution because defendant did not provide independent analysis). Although we may assume that the officers were acting in good faith, we agree with the defendant that such a "good faith" type exception is incompatible with our case law. See State v. Marsala , supra, 216 Conn. at 169-71, 579 A.2d 58 (rejecting good faith exception to warrant requirements); see also State v. Brown , 331 Conn. 258, 275-76, 202 A.3d 1003 (2019) (affirming that **364court's rejection of good faith rule in Marsala was categorical and not amenable to case-by-case application). As we previously have stated, we do not agree that the police officers substantially complied with the clarification rule.

The judgment of the Appellate Court is reversed and the case is remanded to that court with direction to reverse the judgments of the trial court and to remand the case to that court for a new trial.

In this opinion the other justices concurred.