Can a defendant argue that remarks he made to a detective before invoking his right to counsel are inadmissible?

Appellant's argument is premised on the position that remarks he made to the detective before invoking his right to counsel are inadmissible because he eventually invoked his right to counsel. This premise is unsound. There is no "relation back" doctrine. "After a defendant waives his or her Miranda rights, the police are free to interrogate until the defendant invokes his or her Fifth Amendment right to silence. [Citations.]" (People v. Hurd (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 1084, 1090 (Hurd).) A defendant cannot render statements he makes in an interview constitutionally inadmissible just by testifying that he answered in this manner because he wanted to talk to a lawyer first. "A defendant has no right to remain silent selectively. Once a defendant elects to speak after receiving a Miranda warning, his or her refusal to answer questions may be used for impeachment purposes absent any indication that such refusal is an invocation of Miranda rights." (Id. at p. 1093.) Thus, appellant's testimony during direct examination about an unexpressed wish to consult with an attorney did not insulate him from questions about the portion of the interview that occurred before he actually invoked his right to counsel. The prosecutor was free to question appellant about his statements to the detective that he did not know anything about a murder on July 29, 2001, and to argue that these statements were inconsistent with appellant's trial testimony.