Full opinion text
PER CURIAM. Thomas William Rigterink appeals his convictions for first-degree murder and sentences of death. We have jurisdiction. See art. V, § 3(b)(1), Fla. Const. For the reasons provided in our analysis, we reverse Rigterink’s convictions and sentences and remand for a new capital proceeding. I. BACKGROUND This case involves the stabbing and murder of Jeremy Jarvis and Allison Sousa, which occurred in a in a dual-use warehouse complex in Polk County, Florida, on September 24, 2003. After an investigation by the Polk County Sheriffs Office (“PCSO”), Rigterink was indicted for these offenses on November 4, 2003. On September 9, 2005, the jury found Rigterink guilty as to each count of first-degree murder. Following the penalty phase, the jury recommended a death sentence for each murder through two seven-to-five votes. The trial court later held a hearing pursuant to Spencer v. State, 615 So.2d 688 (Fla.1993). At the ensuing sentencing hearing, which was held on October 14, 2005, the trial court adopted the jury’s death recommendations. With regard to the murder of victim Jarvis, the trial court found the following aggravators: (1) Rigterink’s prior conviction of another capital felony or a felony involving the use or threat of violence to a person (i.e., the contemporaneous murder of victim Sousa) (great weight); and (2) The murder of victim Jarvis was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel (“HAC”) (great weight). With regard to the murder of victim Sousa, the trial court found the following ag-gravators: (1) Rigterink’s prior conviction of another capital felony or a felony involving the use or threat of violence to a person (i.e., the contemporaneous murder of victim Jarvis) (great weight); (2) Rigterink murdered victim Sousa to avoid or prevent a lawful arrest (great weight); and (3) HAC (great weight). The trial court found one statutory miti-gator — no significant history of prior criminal activity — but only assigned this mitigation “some weight” because of Rig-terink’s admissions that he has: (a) used illegal drugs, primarily marijuana, since his late teens; (b) stolen from his former employer; and (c) driven with a suspended driver’s license. The trial court also found and considered twelve nonstatutory mitigators. Rigterink later filed a timely notice of appeal with this Court. The evidence presented during Rigter-ink’s trial for these offenses revealed the following facts. A. The Murders of Jeremy Jarvis and Allison Sousa Shortly after 3:00 p.m. on September 24, 2003, a male in his late twenties to early thirties, who fit the general description of Rigterink, attacked victim Jeremy Jarvis with a ten-to-eleven-inch knife. The attack began inside the warehouse residence of Jarvis, which was located in the fifth unit of the complex, and eventually moved outside. A male eyewitness testified that as he drove past this location, he slowed his vehicle and viewed two men-one, an apparent attacker, standing above another, an apparent victim. The victim was lying on the sidewalk immediately in front of one of the building units. The witness’s attention was drawn to the men because he saw red or crimson on the victim’s clothing. It appeared that the attacker was attempting to drag the victim into the last unit of the building. As the victim struggled to free himself, the attacker grabbed him and tore off his T-shirt. When the victim fled toward the first unit of the complex, the witness observed a significant amount of blood flowing from wounds on his chest. The witness observed the victim approach and open the door of the first unit, while the attacker— who was “about halfway down” the sidewalk at this point — remained in pursuit. According to the witness, the victim was a 5'8" male, in his late twenties to early thirties, between 150 and 200 pounds, with dark brown hair, and the attacker was a 6'0" to 6'3" male in his late 20s to early 30s, between 150 and 200 pounds, with dark brown hair. These general descriptions are consistent with the physical characteristics and appearance of Jarvis and defendant-appellant Rigterink on September 24, 2003. Further, the attacker wore a white T-shirt and dark-colored shorts, which is consistent with the clothing Rig-terink later admitted that he wore on the afternoon of September 24. At the time, units 1 and 2 of this dual-use warehouse complex served as the office of a construction business. A second victim, Allison Sousa, and a female eyewitness were both secretaries at this establishment, and each woman was working on Wednesday, September 24, 2003. That afternoon, Sousa and the female witness heard screaming outside of the construction office. They approached and opened the door of unit 1, and a dirty, sweaty, bloody, and shirtless male — who was later identified as the first victim, Jeremy Jarvis — entered the office and sat down in a chair near the door. The female eyewitness testified that Jarvis appeared to be experiencing serious blood loss from a wound on the right side of his chest. The witness remained composed at this point, but Sousa was “more frantic.” Sousa began to care for the man and to call 911. She instructed the female witness to go to the office kitchen in the back to obtain some towels to address the obvious injuries that Jarvis had sustained. The witness obeyed, and as she began to return to the front of unit 1, the witness heard the door slam. She continued forward toward a pass-through window located between the main-office and lobby areas. Through this window, the witness observed a second male aggressively approaching Sousa. At this point, Sousa was approximately six feet away from the witness on the other side of the window. The witness saw that Sousa was still attempting to call 911, and she also caught a glimpse of the second man’s profile and a side view of his body. At trial, she described him as a white male, early-to-late twenties, with dark hair, wearing a long white T-shirt and dark shorts, about 6'3", 170 pounds, with an olive or tan complexion, and no facial hair or hair on his forearms. With the possible exception of the hairless forearms, this description is consistent with Rigter-ink’s appearance on September 24, 2003. The witness could not see whether the second man had anything in his hands, but she felt that he was “going after” Sousa and that he had seen her (the witness) approach the window. For that reason, the witness fled to an office located further toward the rear of unit 1. As the witness ran, she heard Sousa scream, “Don’t hurt me. Don’t hurt me.” When the witness reached the rear office, she closed the door, locked the deadbolt, and dialed 911. The PCSO received two 911 calls from this location on September 24, 2003. The dispatcher received Sousa’s call at 3:07:37 p.m. and received the female eyewitness’s call at 3:07:46 p.m. The recording of the first call reveals: 911 Operator: “911. What’s your emergency? Hello?” 911 Caller: “Oh, my God. Don’t — don’t hurt me. No....” The dispatcher then heard “people ... throwing something around” and afterward total silence. The line remained open for four minutes. During the second 911 call, the female witness told the dispatcher that an injured man entered her office and that another man was then in the process of breaking in and attempting to hurt her coworker, Allison Sousa. The caller further stated that at least one of the men had been stabbed and she feared that something terrible was happening to Sousa. The witness later requested an ambulance, and she provided a consistent description of the attacker: He was wearing a white T-shirt, dark shorts and was probably over six feet tall. The dispatcher remained on the line for several minutes with the witness until PCSO deputies arrived and the dispatcher confirmed their identities. At trial, the female eyewitness testified that during the 911 call, she heard scuffling, banging, and impacts against the walls within unit 1. She later heard someone rub against the walls and attempt to gain access to the rear office in which she was hiding. She only opened the door and emerged from the office once PCSO deputies had arrived and secured the crime scene. After exiting unit 1, the witness provided a contemporaneous statement to PCSO investigators in which she described the attacker as a white male between 6'0" and 6'2", 160-170 pounds, tanned skin, black wavy hair, no facial hair, and wearing a light-colored T-shirt with dark shorts. When PCSO personnel arrived, they secured the entire complex and discovered the lifeless bodies of Jarvis and Sousa in the rear-warehouse area of unit 1. PCSO crime-scene technicians (“CSTs”), and later three blood-spatter technicians from the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (“FDLE”), processed the collective crime scene for the next several days. During the guilt and penalty phases of Rigterink’s subsequent trial for these murders, the medical examiners established that the attacker stabbed or cut Jarvis a total of twenty-two times and stabbed or cut Sousa a total of six times. Both victims had several injuries to their hands and limbs that were consistent with defensive wounds. Of the twenty-two wounds inflicted upon Jarvis, four were fatal: three to his right lung, which led to its eventual collapse and internal and external bleeding; and one to his abdomen, which penetrated his stomach and produced internal and external bleeding. Of the six wounds sustained by Sousa, two were fatal: one just above her left breast, which completely severed her pulmonary trunk, a major blood vessel; and one to her to abdomen, which struck and damaged her liver. Both of Sousa’s fatal wounds led to large amounts of internal bleeding. Inside unit 1 (the office of Sousa’s employer), the CSTs encountered abundant evidence of a bloody, vicious attack. Both sides of the entry door to unit 1 were smeared with blood. There was a large pool of blood near the entrance, as if someone had been standing or sitting there while bleeding heavily, which is consistent with testimony that Jarvis sat in a chair near the entrance while Sousa attempted to dial 911. The CSTs also found a blood-smeared gumball dispenser in the lobby, which was overturned, separated from its base, and surrounded by apparent vomit. The heavy blood stains on the walls and doors of unit 1 were consistent with someone forcefully pushing another — -who was bleeding profusely — against these surfaces. There were also numerous blood-spatter cast-off arcs, which were consistent with the attacker using a bloody knife to repeatedly strike the victims. Further, the pass-through window and the entire hallway leading through unit 1 were smeared with blood. In the main-office area, there was a large pool of blood under a desk as if one of the victims had sought refuge there. A phone on top of the desk was off the hook and dangling from its cord just above the floor. A veritable trail of blood continued down the hallway into the kitchen area, where large amounts of blood were smeared on a refrigerator, a trash bin, and some of the cabinets. Continuing along this trail of blood toward the rear of the unit, the door between the rear-office and warehouse areas had been damaged along with its locking mechanism and frame. This damage was consistent with someone attempting to charge or crash through the door to gain access to the rear-warehouse area of the construction office. Additionally, there were bloody, smeared palm prints on the door. The blood trail finally ended in the rear-warehouse area near the bodies of Jarvis and Sousa. The medical examiners established that the two victims were conscious for several minutes, were aware of their injuries and experienced intense pain, and eventually bled to death. The victims’ wounds were consistent with the attacker stabbing or cutting them with a ten-or eleven-inch blade. Inside unit 5 (the residence of Jarvis), the CSTs discovered large blood smears on the wall adjacent to the entryway— consistent with the conclusion that a struggle occurred in that area. Blood also covered much of the flooring. Furniture, including a sofa, was overturned and in disarray. A trail of blood droplets led from unit 5 along the sidewalk to the entrance of unit 1. FDLE personnel developed two bloody latent fingerprints on the inside of the door to unit 5, which were later determined to match Rigterink’s relevant print patterns. Fingerprint analyst Patricia Newton testified that the photographs of these prints recorded their unique pattern and that the prints were consistent with the print-donor’s fingers having already been covered in blood and the donor then touching the door, rather than the surface of the door having blood on it with the print-donor merely touching the freshly deposited blood. At various locations hidden inside unit 5 (e.g., under the overturned sofa, under Jarvis’s mattress, and inside a laundry hamper), the CSTs found three to five pounds of marijuana with a street value of several thousand dollars. Additionally, the CSTs recovered $429 from Jarvis’s right-front pocket. Jarvis’s mobile phone was the final significant item of evidence that the PCSO discovered in unit 5. Detective Jerry Connolly, the lead detective on this case, and other PCSO investigators eventually used this phone, and associated phone records, to compile a list of Jarvis’s known associates, whom PCSO investigators viewed as the primary leads to solving this case. B. The Resulting Murder Investigation Using the call log on Jarvis’s mobile phone, along with the phone records that the PCSO later obtained from Jarvis’ service provider, Detective Connolly and his colleagues began to establish contact with Jarvis’s known associates. One of the first associates that they contacted was Marshall Mark Mullins. Either late during the night of September 24, 2003, or the early morning of September 25, Detective Connolly and a group of PCSO detectives, including Det. Scott Rench, contacted Mullins at his home. The detectives roused Mullins and questioned him with regard to his whereabouts during the afternoon of September 24, 2003. Mullins provided a complete alibi. He explained that he worked for R & R Heating and Cooling and that during the afternoon of September 24, 2003, he had been completing an HVAC installation at a residence in Lake Wales. Mullins also stated that his employer — the owner of R & R — was with him the entire time. Later, during the day on September 25, 2003, Detective Connolly confirmed this alibi with both the employer and the Lake Wales homeowner. The employer also produced an invoice corroborating that he and Mullins completed the Lake Wales project on September 24, 2003. During Mullins’ recorded statements to PCSO investigators, he never implicated himself in the Jarvis-Sousa murders in any way. Moreover, Mullins’ fingerprints did not match any of the bloody latent prints obtained from the crime scene. According to the testimony of Rigterink’s former girlfriend, Rigterink received a voicemail message from Mullins sometime during the evening of September 24, 2003. On the tape, Mullins said, “Tom, this is your buddy, Mark. I think our buddy, Jeremy [Jarvis], has been shot.” Later, during April of 2004, Mullins was killed in an automobile accident. Since Mullins appeared to be a fruitless lead, the PCSO detectives moved on to other known associates of Jarvis. One of those associates was Rigterink. At approximately 11:30 a.m. on the morning of September 25, 2003 (the day following the murders), two detectives from the PCSO cold-case squad, who had been assigned to assist in the Jarvis-Sousa murder investigation, went to Rigterink’s condominium (“condo”) and knocked on the door. They were interested in this location because of phone calls between a phone located at this address and Jarvis’s mobile phone, which occurred on the day of the murders. A dog barked, but no one responded to the door. The detectives could not see anyone through the doors or windows of the residence. The only vehicle that the detectives observed at the condo was a Jeep registered to Rigterink. The detectives parked their unmarked ear in a position some 200 feet away from the condo where they could observe the front of the building. From that location, they conducted surveillance for several hours. They did not observe any vehicles or persons approach or exit the front of the condo. While they waited outside, the detectives contacted Rigterink’s parents, who agreed to bring him to his condo for an interview. Rigterink arrived at 7:30 p.m. and invited the detectives inside. At approximately 7:45 p.m., two additional detectives (Ivan Navarro and Tracy Smith) arrived to question Rigterink. Rigterink explained that on the previous day, September 24, 2003, he had been in class at Warner Southern College from 8 a.m. until noon. After Rigterink returned home, he called Jarvis to purchase some marijuana. He also stated that sometime after 2 p.m., he had another phone conversation with Jarvis concerning the same topic. Rigter-ink explained that during this second call, Jarvis told Rigterink that he was on his way to Lakeland to pick up a new batch of marijuana. As part of this questioning, Rigterink volunteered the names of three additional known associates of Jarvis — including Marshall Mark Mullins — who were also allegedly involved in the drug trade. Rigterink was calm and collected during the entire interview. He did not exhibit any signs of fear or anxiety, nor did he react with any apparent emotion to the news that his friend or acquaintance, Jeremy Jarvis, had been murdered. Further, Rigterink specifically denied that he had any personal, face-to-face contact with Jarvis on the day of the murders. As part of this visit, Rigterink provided consent for the police to search his Jeep and to “look around” his condo. None of the detectives observed any cuts or injuries to Rigter-ink’s person on September 25. PCSO investigators next made contact with Rigterink on October 9, 2003. By this time, the PCSO — with FDLE assistance — had been able to obtain suitable photographs of the bloody latent prints recovered from the front door of unit 5, and they were in the process of obtaining “elimination prints” from all known associates of Jarvis to rule them out as suspects in the ongoing murder investigation. On October 9, Detective Connolly spoke with Rigterink in his condo. The two men discussed Rigterink’s dealings with Jarvis in regard to purchasing marijuana and the timeframe during which Rigterink had placed the phone calls to Jarvis on the day of the murders. Rigterink agreed to visit the PCSO the next day, October 10, 2003, to provide “elimination prints,” but never appeared for that appointment. At 4:30 p.m. on October 10, Rigterink called Detective Connolly to explain that he would not be able to provide his fingerprints that day due to a lack of transportation. As an alternative, Rigterink offered to appear the following Monday, October 13, 2003. Rigterink also failed to appear on the 13th; instead, he took his former girlfriend to the beach. On October 14 and 15, the PCSO investigators were unable to establish contact with Rigterink at his condo or through his friends and family. During the evening of October 14, 2003, Rigterink’s former girlfriend used her key to enter Rigterink’s condo to feed his dog. Inside, she discovered that Rig-terink had barricaded himself inside his bathroom. She was frightened because she thought that Rigterink was dead or that something awful had happened to him. Rigterink and his former girlfriend then traveled to her home, went for a ride in her car, and had a conversation during which Rigterink explained to her that everything was going to be fine. Later that night, Rigterink’s former girlfriend dropped him off at his parents’ home. At trial, Rigterink testified that he then decided to hide on his parents’ roof: The house is such that there are solar panels on the flat part of the roof over ... the porch ... and it’s basically like a tent, and that’s where I hid. And ... I figured ... no one would think to look up there. I would be safe, and I could sort of watch who came and went at their house. While on the roof, Rigterink saw the PCSO investigators come and go on October 15, 2003. During this time, the PCSO obtained an executed consent-search form to impound and search a 1992 blue Toyota pickup that belonged to Rigterink’s father. Using a chemical called Luminol, the CSTs later discovered blood near the driver-side door, armrest, seatbelt and seatbelt assembly, steering wheel and column, and the passenger-side floorboard area. At trial, Rigterink admitted that he borrowed his father’s blue Toyota pickup on Monday, September 22, 2003, and that he continued driving the truck until Wednesday, September 24, 2003. The PCSO investigators were not aware of this information at the time, but the blood found inside the truck was genetically consistent with that of Jarvis. According to the relevant FBI DNA database, the frequency occurrence of the driver-side door sample was 32 quadrillion to one in the Caucasian population. The frequency occurrence of one of the seatbelt samples produced the same statistical probability. The remaining samples were consistent with mixtures of Rigterink’s and Jarvis’s blood, but excluded Sousa as a possible donor. On the morning of October 16, 2003, from his perch on the roof, Rigterink saw his mother, Nancy, who appeared to be distressed. Rigterink descended from the roof to comfort her. At approximately 10 a.m. on the 16th, Nancy called Detective Connolly and explained that Rigterink was ready to speak with the PCSO investigators. When Detective Connolly and other investigators arrived, Rigterink had just finished a shower and, while he dressed, Rigterink told Detective Connolly that two men from Lake Wales who sold “ice” (i.e., methamphetamines) might have murdered Jarvis and Sousa. After some discussion, Rigterink agreed to accompany the police to the PCSO Bureau of Criminal Investigations (“BCI”) to provide “elimination prints.” Rigterink was driven by his parents to the BCI office. After Rigterink provided “elimination prints,” he was interviewed by a group of PCSO detectives. Following several hours of questioning-which included repeated accusations of dissembling and the disclosure that Rigterink’s fingerprints matched those discovered in blood at the crime scene — Rigterink eventually admitted in a videotaped statement that (1) he traveled to the dual-use warehouse complex on September 24, 2003, to purchase marijuana from Jarvis; (2) he struggled with Jarvis while holding a large knife, but did not recall stabbing anyone; (3) he pursued Jarvis into unit 1; (4) he recalled certain aspects of these events, but his memories appeared as disjointed “Polaroid snapshots”; (5) he eventually discovered Sousa’s body and “freaked out”; and (6) in the midst of “hauling ass” away from the warehouse complex, he disposed of the bloody knife and a black Jansport backpack — which contained his bloody clothing-by throwing these items off of a bridge. At the conclusion of this interrogation, PCSO personnel arrested Rigterink for the murders of Jarvis and Sousa. C. Rigterink’s Confession and Trial Testimony i. Attempted Suppression On August 20, 2004, before Rigterink’s eventual trial for these murders, he moved to suppress all statements that he made during the videotaped portion of his October 16, 2003, confession. Rigterink contended that these statements should be suppressed because the written and verbal Miranda warnings provided by the PCSO detectives were materially defective. Specifically, Rigterink challenged the verbal and written right-to-counsel warnings he received because each advised him that he only had “the right to have an attorney present prior to questioning.” (Emphasis supplied.) The initial trial judge and a successor trial judge each denied the motion to suppress on the ground that Rig-terink was not in custody and, therefore, was not entitled to any Miranda warnings. Rigterink also objected to the admission and publication of the videotaped confession at trial, which the court overruled. In total, the October 16 police interview or interrogation continued for over four hours as Rigterink remained in the same small room. However, the unrecorded portion of the interrogation, which was not challenged, covered from approximately 11 a.m. until 2:24 p.m. (roughly 3.5 hours). During the suppression hearing, Rigterink contended that while he initially traveled to the BCI office voluntarily to provide “elimination prints” and to speak with the PCSO investigators, the interrogation became custodial when the police (1) confronted him with tangible, circumstantial evidence of his guilt and repeatedly accused him of lying, and (2) read him his rights pursuant to Miranda, ii. The Unrecorded, Unchallenged Portion of the Interrogation — Rigterink’s First, Second, and Third Stories The non-taped portion of the October 16, 2003, interview or interrogation constituted the majority of the police questioning and, again, has not been challenged below or on appeal. During the suppression hearing, Detective Connolly was the only witness to testify on behalf of either party. Connolly testified that after attempting to reach Rigterink from October 9, 2003, until October 15, 2003, the PCSO investigators were finally able to reestablish contact with him in order to obtain his “elimination prints.” While the police were waiting for fingerprint analysts to compare Rigterink’s fingerprints to the bloody latent prints discovered at the crime scene, Rigterink was taken to a six-by-eight, sound-insulated interrogation room, which contained three chairs and a small desk. Initially, Detectives Connolly, Rench, and Raczynski were all inside this small room with Rig-terink. Connolly testified that the interrogation-room door was closed but not locked. PCSO personnel instructed Rig-terink’s parents to remain waiting in the lobby. Rigterink was not handcuffed or restrained during'the interrogation. During the unrecorded portions of the interrogation, Rigterink provided three irreconcilable stories in response to repeated accusations from the detectives that he was lying with regard to his activities and whereabouts on the day of the murders. First, Rigterink claimed that he called Jarvis to establish a marijuana deal on September 24, 2003 (the day of the murders), but he never actually went to Jarvis’s home that day. At the conclusion of his first story, the detectives accused Rigterink of lying. In response, Rigterink offered a different version of the facts: He traveled to Jarvis’s home on the day of the murders, completed a purchase of marijuana, and left at a time when Jarvis was alone and unharmed. At the conclusion of Rigterink’s second story, the detectives again stated that he was lying and that he was somehow involved with these murders. The detectives finally decided to confront Rigterink with the fact that two of his fingerprints matched the bloody latent prints recovered from the crime scene. After being confronted with the fingerprint match, Rigterink provided a still different version of the facts. In this third rendition, Rigterink stated that he arrived after the murders occurred. Specifically, he claimed that when he approached unit 5, he saw blood smeared over the entryway. Rigterink then walked inside unit 5 and “touched everything” in the process of looking for Jarvis. He was unable to find Jarvis in unit 5, so he exited. Once outside, he noticed a blood trail leading from unit 5 to unit 1, so he followed the trail until he arrived at unit 1. He entered unit 1 and observed a large amount of blood and two people lying on the floor. Rigter-ink then approached the bodies and checked both of their pulses. He could not find a pulse on either victim. At this point, Rigterink realized that he was covered in blood and became scared, so he fled and drove home. Rigterink could not explain why he was covered in blood. He did not call 911 because he was frightened. Rigterink estimated that he spent only five minutes at the crime scene. At the conclusion of his third story, the detectives again accused Rigterink of lying with regard to his involvement in these murders. Rigterink then replied that he would tell the detectives “the whole truth.” Detective Connolly testified that Rigterink was responsive and alert throughout this process. It was only after Rigterink had agreed to “tell the whole truth,” that Detective Connolly verbally advised him of his Miranda rights and requested that he read and sign a rights-waiver form to ensure the admissibility of his confession. As further explained in our analysis, both the verbal and written explanations of Rig-terink’s “Fifth Amendment” right to counsel were defective based on our decision in State v. Powell, 998 So.2d 531 (Fla.2008), because these explanations only stated that Rigterink had a right to counsel “pri- or to” questioning. Once Rigterink was read his Miranda rights — which included a defective explanation of his right to counsel — Detective Connolly turned on a hidden recording device and microphone located within the interview room, iii. The Recorded, Challenged Portion of the Interrogation — Rigterink’s Fourth Story Rigterink challenges only the admissibility of the recorded portion of his lengthy October 16, 2003, interrogation. The interrogation continued for approximately 3.5 hours before Rigterink received Miranda warnings. During the recording of Rigterink’s confession, which was entered into evidence as State’s exhibit 462, Rig-terink first claimed that he was suffering from a case of food poisoning during the morning of September 24, 2003. He awoke at around 7 a.m. and called Jarvis at approximately noon. The call was “[a]bout hooking up. And [Jarvis] said he had to go to Lakeland, he’d try to get there fast. And [Rigterink] said, why don’t you go ahead and go, and I’ll come over after.” “Hooking up,” meant purchasing marijuana. Rigterink claimed that he later discovered Jarvis was also involved in the methamphetamine trade. At approximately 2:30 p.m. on September 24th, Jarvis returned Rigterink’s call and informed him that the marijuana was available. Rigterink then drove his father’s blue 1992 Toyota pickup to the warehouse complex. That day, Rigterink was wearing “[b]lack shorts and a gray shirt and tennis shoes” and a floppy desert-camouflage hat. When Rigterink traveled to Jarvis’s home on the 24th, he carried a black Jans-port backpack in which he placed a black hunting knife with a ten-or eleven-inch blade that began straight but curved toward its tip. Rigterink also carried an off-white Nike T-shirt inside this backpack, which he planned to wear later that afternoon. At that point, Rigterink had owned the knife for approximately ten years. When Rigterink arrived at the complex, he parked immediately outside unit 5. Rigter-ink was unaccompanied and he explained to the detectives that he always carried a bag with him to Jarvis’s home to conceal his marijuana purchases. Jarvis’s front door was partially open, but Rigterink knocked nonetheless, and Jarvis allowed him to enter. Rigterink and Jarvis did not consume any drugs or alcohol during this visit. However, Rigterink claimed that he was still somewhat ill from his case of food poisoning. Rigterink described the remaining events through a series of five “Polaroid snapshots.” Once he entered unit 5, he and Jarvis spoke briefly about the new batch of marijuana, and then Jarvis began to reach under his sofa to retrieve something. This is the last thing that Rigterink remembered before being “locked up” in a struggle with Jarvis near the front door of unit 5. In the midst of the interrogation, Rigterink offered to draw a diagram to accompany his verbal and physical descriptions of these events. This diagram was eventually entered into evidence as State’s exhibit 466. As part of the first “Polaroid snapshot,” Rigterink stated that he saw himself “locked up” with Jarvis and perceived that he had the hunting knife in his hand and that he was covered in blood. Rigterink claimed that he did not realize that Jarvis had been stabbed until they both exited unit 5, and Jarvis pulled off his T-shirt, thereby exposing his wounds. When they moved outside, Rigterink saw himself standing, while Jarvis was kneeling, which is consistent with the testimony of the male eyewitness presented at trial. Rigterink could not remember if he was attempting to help or harm Jarvis. Rigterink then recalled a second “Polaroid snapshot”: I remember being there. I can tell you exactly the position we were in.... And I remember I was holding onto him. I don’t know if I had the knife in my hand because I thought I had him with two hands, but I know I still had the knife in my hand, holding onto him. And the next thing I remember — I don’t — I don’t remember at all.... [A]nd in any event, the next thing I remember is running. I think I was right behind him. He then transitioned to a third “Polaroid snapshot,” this time within unit 1: “And the ... next image I have is [Jarvis] swinging a bubble gum dispenser at me.” Rigterink claimed that he was not bruised or cut the next day, but he felt as though he had sprained his wrist. He agreed that his sprain might have been from the “jarring” of the knife. Rigterink then recalled a fourth “Polaroid snapshot”: He ran down a long hallway in unit 1 and “jumped into” or “ran through” the doorway separating the rear-office area from the warehouse area. Rigterink said that he may have injured his wrist by hitting the door. Rigterink then segued into his fifth “Polaroid snapshot”: “And the last thing I remember is looking at the girl [Allison Sousa]. I didn’t even see Jeremy [Jarvis] in the back room. And then I hauled ass.” Rigterink claimed that he checked Sousa’s pulse. He did not know if she had one because he was “freaked out.” Rigterink was emphatic that he did not remember stabbing either victim. He did not remember seeing Jarvis after the third “Polaroid snapshot.” When asked about the issue of paying for the marijuana that day, Rigterink claimed that Jarvis was simply going to give him the marijuana free of charge. After these events, Rigterink claimed that he removed his bloody shirt and ran back into unit 1 to retrieve the backpack before leaving. Rigterink then opined to the interrogating detectives that he had self-diagnosed potential psychological problems. He did not remember any type of argument with Jarvis; rather, he claimed that he simply “blacked out.” He stated that on at least two prior occasions he had blacked out and severely beaten others: once in Miami and once in Tampa. For a time, he consulted a drug-rehabilitation therapist — Julie Dantzler — but he was “above her head.” He suggested that his conduct was related to his self-diagnosed mental-health problems. Rigterink then described his drive away from the crime scene: “I remember being at [a traffic] light and looking down and being covered in blood.” When Rigterink looked down and discovered that he was covered in blood, he thought “[w]hat the f*ck happened.” At that moment, he determined that it would be best to get rid of the knife and the backpack because they were “obviously evidence at that time that something had happened.” Rigterink claimed that he threw the knife and the black backpack over a bridge that he crossed on his way home (despite searching, the PCSO never recovered these evi-dentiary items). The knife and the backpack had been lying on the passenger-side floorboard of the Toyota pickup, which explains the blood that the CSTs later found in that area of the vehicle. Once he returned home, Rigterink took a shower but he did not remember if he cleaned the Toyota pickup. With the exception of his shorts and tennis shoes, all of the clothing that he wore during the attacks was in the black Jansport backpack that he threw over the bridge. Therefore, on the following day, Thursday, September 25, 2003, he washed his shorts and shoes and placed them in a Tupperware bin in his closet. He later placed these shoes and shorts in the garbage, which was picked up on the following day, September 26, 2003 (this later action roughly coincided with the PCSO detectives’ first visit to Rigterink’s condo). After cleaning up on the 24th, Rigterink took his dog with him to his parents’ home. The following exchange between Detective Raczynski is indicative of the type of response Rigterink offered with regard to why he did not render aid or call 911: Raczynski: So after you left and you realize what you had done[,] did you think to maybe call somebody to make sure that [Jarvis and Sousa] were okay or what were you thinking? Rigterink: No thought process at all.... Everything was all ... black. After the fact it was a blur. I don’t remember individual actions I took or places I went or people I talked to. Rigterink claimed that by “[t]hat Friday[, September 26, 2003,] I knew that I’d done it.... I don’t remember the event but I knew what had happened.” Rigterink stated that he did not discuss the killings with anyone or tell anyone what he had done. After this information was obtained, at approximately 5:30 p.m., Detective Connolly called an assistant state attorney to ensure that he had probable cause to arrest Rigterink. Once he had the attorney’s approval, Detective Connolly arrested Rigterink and placed him in PCSO custody. Rigterink’s parents were still waiting in the lobby at this time, and PCSO personnel then told them that they should return home without their son. Rigterink was 32 years old when he provided his confession and, until his arrest, he was not placed in handcuffs or otherwise restrained. iv. The Relevant Trial Testimony— Rigterink’s Fifth Story During the defense case-in-chief, Rigter-ink took the stand and testified in what amounted to over nine hours of combined direct, cross, and redirect examination. Through his testimony, he offered a fifth version of the facts with regard to his activities and whereabouts on Wednesday, September 24, 2003. In the process, he contradicted almost everything that he had previously told the police and, instead, claimed that he intentionally misled the PCSO investigators because Marshall Mark Mullins had threatened to kill him, his parents, and his former girlfriend if he mentioned that Mullins or an unnamed group of “others” were involved in the murders of Jarvis and Sousa. During his testimony at trial, Rigterink again admitted that he was at the crime scene, but claimed that he arrived after an apparent attack, explored unit 5, followed the blood trail to unit 1, and then ran down the hallway in unit 1 where he crashed through the doorway separating the rear-office and warehouse areas. Once inside the warehouse area, he discovered both victims. According to Rigterink, Jarvis was still alive and reached up and grabbed Rigterink’s hand and arm and then slumped back to the floor. Rigterink then heard what he thought were car doors slamming shut, so he ran outside. As he exited unit 1, he saw a dirty white van drive away. When the van drove past, Rigterink made eye contact with the driver and a passenger. The driver was a taller white male, while the passenger was a shorter, stockier, shirtless man with tattoos on his upper body. Rigterink also thought that he saw movement in the rear of the van, so (in his mind) there may have been a third person in the vehicle. In an apparent attempt to explain his unorthodox response to discovering two very bloody murder victims (one of whom was an acquaintance or Mend), Rigterink consistently described himself as “freaked out,” and explained that he had never encountered this type of situation.' He never called 911 and never told anyone about the gory, blood-filled scene that he had discovered because on the 24th he was still “freaked out,” and on the 25th, Mullins allegedly visited Rigterink at his condo and issued the death threats. Under oath, Rigterink denied: (1) owning a black hunting knife; (2) having a bag to transport marijuana; (3) owning a black Jansport backpack; (4) changing his clothes or throwing his clothes away; (5) carrying a knife or attacking either of the victims; (6) injuring his wrist; and (7) ever having been in a fight or struggle. Rigter-ink further claimed that the detectives suggested many of the details and eviden-tiary items that he identified and discussed during the interrogation. Rigterink testified that he simply “went along with” what the police wanted to hear. In his mind, if he concocted enough stories, the PCSO detectives would then see through his intentional fagade and would conduct a thorough examination, which would exonerate him without requiring him to implicate Marshall Mark Mullins. In the words of Rigterink: Well, I didn’t do it, and I figured they’d be able to tell that I had nothing to do with it. As far as the knife, I never had a knife. I never got in a confrontation with Jeremy.... I figured the system would work. In contrast to his claim that he believed the detectives would simply see though his stories, Rigterink also testified that he wanted to provide enough detail “to make it believable.” Further, despite the apparently very real, very serious death threats that Mullins delivered on behalf of himself and a dangerous group of unnamed drug dealers, Rigterink had consistently provided Mullins’ name to the investigating detectives when they asked him to identify additional associates of Jarvis who might have information relevant to his murder. In fact, the name “Marshall Mark Mullins” was among the first pieces of information that Rigterink provided to PCSO detectives during their first visit to speak with him on September 25, 2003. Moreover, Rigterink provided Mullins’ name to law enforcement on the night of September 25 notwithstanding the fact that he claims Mullins issued the death threats that very morning. Much of Rigterink’s trial testimony was also inconsistent with the testimony of other witnesses. For example, his ex-wife testified that he always kept a large military knife with a curved tip and a ten-or eleven-inch black blade lodged between their mattress and box spring. Also, both the male and female eyewitnesses testified that one man — not a group of two or three men — pursued Jarvis. An additional concern with Rigterink’s testimony involved the amount of time between when the PCSO received the 911 calls (close to 3:08 p.m.) and when the first responders arrived on scene (close to 3:18 p.m.), which would have made it difficult for Rigterink to have arrived after the murders occurred and to have then explored units 5 and 1 before “freaking out” and leaving all before law enforcement arrived. Finally, on cross-examination, Rigterink was not able to explain why he never called out to his friend Jarvis when he entered unit 1— where the female eyewitness happened to be on the phone with the 911 dispatcher— or why he felt compelled to charge down a blood-soaked hallway and crash through a door when, by his own admission, he was not there to render aid and was unsure what had occurred in units 1 and 5. D. Rigterink’s Claims on Appeal Rigterink’s primary claim on appeal is his challenge to the admissibility of the single videotaped account of his activities and whereabouts on September 24, 2003. He does so based on the defective right-to-counsel warning provided by the interrogating detectives. In addition, he raises six other claims: (1) the trial court erred in excluding additional testimony that corroborated Rigterink’s testimony concerning the violent nature of the drug trade and Mullins’ alleged reputation for violence within this “community”; (2) Florida’s capital-sentencing scheme is unconstitutional because the judge rather than the jury determines the sentence and the jury’s recommendation need not be unanimous; (3) automatic aggravators should not bar the application of Ring v. Arizona, 536 U.S. 584, 122 S.Ct. 2428, 153 L.Ed.2d 556 (2002), to Florida’s capital-sentencing scheme; (4) Florida’s standard penalty-phase jury instructions unconstitutionally shift the burden to the defendant to prove that mitigating factors outweigh aggravating factors; (5) Florida’s standard penalty-phase jury instructions unconstitutionally denigrate the role of the jury in violation of Caldwell v. Mississippi 472 U.S. 320, 105 S.Ct. 2633, 86 L.Ed.2d 231 (1985); and (6) death by lethal injection constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Through prior decisions, we have rejected the majority of claims that Rigterink asserts on appeal. In addition, Rigterink did not object below to the penalty-phase jury instructions or to Florida’s lethal-injection protocol; hence, these claims are unpreseryed for purposes of direct appeal. See, e.g., Walls v. State, 926 So.2d 1156, 1180 (Fla.2006); Harrell v. State, 894 So.2d 935, 941 (Fla.2005). Finally, because the ultimate resolution of the .Miranda claim is determinative of this case, we address only that issue. With regard to the Miranda claim, we hold: (i) that Rigterink was in custody for purposes of Miranda; (ii) that the right-to-eounsel warning he received was constitutionally deficient; and (iii) that the admission and publication of his videotaped confession was harmful error. As a result of this holding, we reverse Rigterink’s convictions and sentences and remand for a new capital trial. II. ANALYSIS A. Introduction — the Evolution of Miranda’s Custody Framework In Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S.Ct. 1602, 16 L.Ed.2d 694 (1966), the United States Supreme Court held that the Self-Incrimination Clause of the Fifth Amendment applies to. custodial interrogation. This Court has generally followed federal Fifth Amendment precedent in interpreting article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution. See, e.g., Cuervo v. State, 967 So.2d 155, 160 (Fla.2007) (“Article I, section 9 of the Florida Constitution provides in pertinent part that ‘[n]o person shall ... be compelled in any criminal matter to be a witness against oneself.’ This fundamental right is mirrored in the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.”). However, unlike article I, sections 12 (“Searches and seizures”) and 17 (“Excessive punishments”), section 9 does not contain a proviso that we must follow federal precedent with regard to the right against self-incrimination. Cf. Traylor v. State, 596 So.2d 957, 962 (Fla.1992) (“When called upon to decide matters of fundamental rights, Florida’s state courts are bound under federalist principles to give primacy to our state Constitution and to give independent legal import to every phrase and clause contained therein.”). Thus, in this context, the federal Constitution sets the floor, not the ceiling, and this Court retains the ability to interpret the right against self-incrimination afforded by the Florida Constitution more broadly than that afforded by its federal counterpart. See, e.g., In re T.W., 551 So.2d 1186, 1191 (Fla.1989) (“State constitutions, too, are a font of individual liberties, their protections often extending beyond those required by the Supreme Court’s interpretation of federal law.... [Without [independent state law], the full realization of our liberties cannot be guaranteed.” (quoting William J. Brennan, Jr., State Constitutions and the Protection of Individual Rights, 90 Harv. L.Rev. 489, 491 (1977))). This Court is the ultimate “arbiter[] of the meaning and extent of the safeguards provided under Florida’s Constitution.” Busby v. State, 894 So.2d 88, 102 (Fla.2004). To protect this right within the “incommunicado” confines of such questioning, the United States Supreme Court created a prophylactic framework comprised of a standard list of four warnings: Prior to any questioning, [1] the person must be warned that he has a right to remain silent, [2] that any statement he does make may be used as evidence against him, and [3] that he has a right to the presence of an attorney, [4] either retained or appointed. The defendant may waive effectuation of these rights, provided the waiver is made voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently. Miranda, at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (emphasis supplied). These warnings are not themselves federal constitutional rights; rather, they are required “to dispel the compulsion inherent in custodial surroundings.” 384 U.S. at 458, 86 S.Ct. 1602; see also Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U.S. 433, 444, 94 S.Ct. 2357, 41 L.Ed.2d 182 (1974). If the State cannot demonstrate (1) that its officers issued these warnings prior to custodial interrogation and (2) that the defendant executed a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver of his or her associated rights, then it “may not use statements, whether exculpatory or inculpato-ry, stemming from custodial interrogation of the defendant” in its case in chief. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602; see also Oregon v. Elstad, 470 U.S. 298, 307, 105 S.Ct. 1285, 84 L.Ed.2d 222 (1985) (statements obtained in violation of Miranda are available to impeach a defendant’s trial testimony). “The Miranda exclusionary rule ... serves the Fifth Amendment [but] sweeps more broadly than the Fifth Amendment itself. It may be triggered even in the absence of a [traditional] Fifth Amendment [voluntariness] violation.” Elstad, 470 U.S. at 306, 105 S.Ct. 1285. The dictates of Miranda apply exclusively to “in-custody interrogation.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 441-42, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (emphasis supplied); see also Jones v. State, 748 So.2d 1012, 1019 (Fla.1999) (“Miranda only applies when a defendant is subject to custodial interrogation.” (emphasis supplied)). Further, there is a limited public-safety exception to the rule that law-enforcement officers must first Miran-dize custodial subjects prior to interrogation. See New York v. Quarles, 467 U.S. 649, 655-56, 104 S.Ct. 2626, 81 L.Ed.2d 550 (1984) (issuing this holding within the context of an on-scene arrest of a rape suspect who had discarded a firearm in or near a grocery store). For Miranda purposes, “custody” has a disjunctive meaning: “[W]e mean questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person, has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of. his freedom of action in any significant way.” Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (emphasis supplied). Based on this definition, Miranda applies to a broader range of situations than custodial interrogation within police stations. See, e.g., Mathis v. United States, 391 U.S. 1, 3-4, 88 S.Ct. 1503, 20 L.Ed.2d 381 (1968) (holding that Miranda applied when an IRS agent questioned a defendant who was already incarcerated in state prison concerning an unrelated offense); Orozco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324, 326-27, 89 S.Ct. 1095, 22 L.Ed.2d 311 (1969) (holding that Miranda applied to intense police questioning of a defendant within his own bedroom). Following Miranda, commentators and lower courts attempted to determine the proper parameters of measuring whether an interrogated suspect is in “custody,” and thus entitled to Miranda warnings. See, e.g., United States v. Hall, 421 F.2d 540, 543 (2d Cir.1970) (citing Kenneth W. Graham, What Is “Custodial Interrogation?”: California’s Anticipatory Application of Miranda v. Arizona, 14 U.C.L.A. L.Rev. 59, 114-15 (1966), and Yale Kami-sar, “Custodial Interrogation” Within the Meaning of Miranda, in Criminal Law and the Constitution 339-40 (1968), as examples of relevant scholarship). Much of this early debate centered on the meaning of Miranda’s fourth footnote: This is what we meant in Escobedo [v. Illinois, 378 U.S. 478, 490-91, 84 S.Ct. 1758, 12 L.Ed.2d 977 (1964) (a Sixth Amendment right-to-counsel decision),] when we spoke of an investigation which had focused on an accused. Miranda, 384 U.S. at 445 n. 4, 86 S.Ct. 1602 (emphasis supplied); see also 2 Wayne R. LaFave et al., Criminal Procedure § 6.6(a), at 720-23 (3d ed.2007). The Court eventually ended this debate in Beckwith v. United States, 425 U.S. 341, 96 S.Ct. 1612, 48 L.Ed.2d 1 (1976), where it rejected a taxpayer’s suggestion that he was “in custody” simply because IRS Intelligence Division agents had “focused” upon him as a suspect in a criminal tax-fraud investigation. The Court explained that “Miranda implicitly defined ‘focus,’ for its purposes, as ‘questioning initiated by law enforcement officers after a person has been taken into custody or otherwise deprived of his freedom of action in any significant way,”’ which meant that “focus” alone was insufficient to trigger the requirement that the defendant receive Miranda warnings. Beckwith, 425 U.S. at 347, 96 S.Ct. 1612 (emphasis supplied) (quoting Miranda, 384 U.S. at 444, 86 S.Ct. 1602). The Court next faced a two-fold question with regard to defining “custody” for purposes of Miranda: (1) whether the test is objective or subjective; and (2) whose perspective — that of law enforcement or that of the defendant-is the proper point of reference. By this time, the better-reasoned decisions from the lower federal courts had already settled on an objective test, which is based on the perspective of the defendant. See, e.g., Hall, 421 F.2d at 544-45 (“The test must thus be an objective one. Clearly the [High] Court meant that something more than official interrogation must be shown.... [I]n the absence of actual arrest something must be said or done by the authorities, either in their manner of approach or in the tone or extent of their questioning, which indicates that they would not have heeded a request to depart or to allow the suspect to do so.” (emphasis supplied)). The United States Supreme Court explicitly adopted this objective test in Berkemer v. McCarty, 468 U.S. 420, 104 S.Ct. 3138, 82 L.Ed.2d 317 (1984), where it held that [a] policeman’s unarticulated plan has no bearing on the question whether a suspect was “in custody” at a particular time; the only relevant inquiry is how a reasonable man in the suspect’s position would have understood his situation. Id. at 442, 104 S.Ct. 3138 (emphasis supplied). The Court later reiterated this position in Stansbury v. California, 511 U.S. 318, 114 S.Ct. 1526, 128 L.Ed.2d 293 (1994), by stating that its “decisions make clear that the initial determination of custody depends on the objective circumstances of the interrogation, not on the subjective views harbored by either the interrogating officers or the person being questioned.” Id. at 323, 114 S.Ct. 1526 (emphasis supplied). However, the Court also clarified that the subjective perception or intent of the interrogating officer becomes relevant for purposes of the objective test when disclosed or articulated “by word or deed” during the course of .the interrogation. Id. at 325, 114 S.Ct. 1526 (emphasis supplied). Within this objective inquiry, [e]ven a clear statement from an officer that the person under interrogation is a prime suspect is not, in itself, dispositive of the custody issue, for some suspects are free to come and go until the police decide to make an arrest. The weight and pertinence of any communications regarding the officer’s degree of suspicion will depend upon the facts and circumstances of the particular case. Id. (emphasis supplied). This entire line of precedent demonstrates “that a determination of whether the situation [i]s custodial for Miranda purposes will often require a careful examination of all the [objective] circumstances of the particular case.” LaFave, supra § 6.6(c), at 729. The United States Supreme Court has also held that “voluntary” interviews conducted in police stations do not necessarily trigger Miranda. See Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492, 495, 97 S.Ct. 711, 50 L.Ed.2d 714 (1977) (defendant not in custody where: (1) he voluntarily traveled to the police station; (2) the interrogating officer explicitly to'ld him that he was not under arrest; (3) the interview lasted for thirty minutes; and (4) the defendant was free to leave after the interview); California v. Beheler, 463 U.S. 1121, 1123-25, 103 S.Ct. 3517, 77 L.Ed.2d 1275 (1983) (defendant not in custody where: (1) he voluntarily traveled to the police station; (2) the interrogating officer told him that he was not under arrest; and (3) the interview lasted for thirty minutes); see also Roman v. State, 475 So.2d 1228, 1230-32 (Fla.1985) (defendant not in custody where: (1) he voluntarily traveled to the police station; (2) the police did not confront him with evidence of his guilt but, instead, showed him photographs of the child victim and pleaded that he help ensure the child’s proper burial; and (3) the interview lasted for 3.5 hours). Of course, this raises at least two questions: (1) What qualifies as a “voluntary” interview?; and (2) Once an interview is classified as “voluntary,” does it inexorably remain so? Similar to the traffic-stop situation at issue in Berkemer, at some point the words and conduct of the interrogating officers may transform that which once was a noncustodial, “voluntary” event into a custodial interrogation, which then triggers Miranda. See, e.g., Mansfield v. State, 758 So.2d 636, 644 (Fla.2000) (the interrogating detectives converted a “voluntary” interview into a custodial interrogation where: “[1] .[the defendant] was interrogated by three detectives at the police station, [2] he was never told he was free to leave, [3] he was confronted with evidence strongly suggesting his guilt, and [4] he was asked questions that made it readily apparent that the detectives considered him the prime, if not the only, suspect”); Caso v. State, 524 So.2d 422, 424 (Fla.1988) (finding the defendant “in custody” and stating, “Contrary to the defendants in Beheler and Mathiason, Caso did not initiate the contact with police. Moreover, Caso was interrogated at the police station and was not specifically informed that he was not under arrest, despite being confronted with evidence which implicated him in the crime.... ”). Thus, the statements that appear in Mathiason and Beheler indicating that the “the requirement of warnings [is not] to be imposed simply because the questioning takes place in the station house, or because the questioned person is one whom the police suspect,” must be interpreted in light of the objective circumstances presented in those cases, as disclosed by the words and actions of the interrogating officers. In each case, the defendants were explicitly told that they were not under arrest, the interviews only lasted for thirty minutes, and the defendants were free to leave post-interview. Further, Mathiason is now of dubious validity to the extent the Court held that confrontation with evidence of guilt does not bear on custody determinations. Mathiason appears to have employed a now abandoned subjective test to hold that the officer’s false claim that the defendant’s fingerprints matched those recovered from the scene of a burglary was of no significance. See LaFave, supra § 6.6(d), at 734 n. 49 (“[T]he [holding of the] Court in Mathia-son, by stating the officer’s falsehood ‘has nothing to do with whether respondent was in custody for purposes of the Miranda rule,’ ... cannot be squared with the Court’s [modern] objective test, [therefore] it is often not followed by lower courts. See, e.g., ... Mansfield v. State, 758 So.2d 636 (Fla.2000) (custody [occurred] at station where defendant ‘was confronted with evidence strongly suggesting his guilt, and he was asked questions that made it readily apparent that the detectives considered him the prime, if not the only, suspect’).... ”). The High Court most recently reaffirmed its objective “reasonable person” Miranda custody test in a federal habeas case, which required a deferential standard of review under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. See Yarborou