“A police officer’s response to a direct inquiry by the defendant does not constitute ‘interrogation.’ See United States v. Conley, 156 F.3d 78, 83 (1st Cir. 1998) (no interrogation where police responded after suspect repeatedly asked, ‘What’s this all about?’); United States v. Taylor, 985 F.2d 3, 6-7 (1st Cir. 1993) (no interrogation where police officer responded to suspect’s question, ‘Why is this happening to me?’); United States v. Benton, 996 F.2d 642, 643-44 (3d Cir. 1993) (no interrogation where police responded to suspect’s demand to know ‘what was going on’); United States v. Jackson, 863 F.2d 1168, 1172-73 (4th Cir. 1989) (no interrogation where police officer responded to defendant’s inquiry regarding reasons for his arrest); see also United States v. Payne, 954 F.2d 199, 203 (4th Cir. 1992) (no interrogation where police officer’s statement ‘was not one that sought or required a response’). Thus, Lt. Story’s statement that he thought Trigg would be charged with the same offense as Briggs did not constitute ‘interrogation.'”
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of Indiana, Lee, J., Flaum, J.