How have the Miranda warnings been interpreted in criminal cases?

In People v. Suff (2014) 58 Cal.4th 1013 (Suff), the defendant was arrested on a parole violation and advised of the Miranda warnings. The defendant asked the officer, " 'Do I need a lawyer?' " The officer responded, " 'Well, I don't know. Do you need a lawyer?' " The defendant said he didn't know and " '[f]or what I've done, I don't see why I need a lawyer.' " The officer asked the defendant to just talk to her, and the defendant agreed. The interview continued for several hours and included a discussion about the killing of prostitutes. The officer asked for consent to search his house. The defendant replied, " 'I need to know, am I being charged with this, because if I'm being charged with this I think I need a lawyer.' " The officer replied, " 'Well, at this point, no you're not being charged with this,' " and the defendant consented to the search. The interrogation continued for several more hours, and the defendant made additional incriminating statements about being in an orange grove where a body was found. The officer asked for more information " 'about the body you left there.' " The defendant said: " 'I better get a lawyer now. I better get a lawyer, because you think I did it and I didn't.' " The interview continued and defendant made more incriminating statements. (Id. at p. 1067.)