In Bryant v. State, 314 Ark. 130, 862 S.W.2d 215, 217 (Ark. 1993), the trial court had denied defendant's motions to suppress incriminating statements he had made to the police. There, the defendant was wanted for questioning in a murder in Arkansas, was apprehended in Kentucky, and gave a statement to the Kentucky State Police. 862 S.W.2d at 218. Meanwhile, the Arkansas public defender had learned that the police were looking for appellant and requested that the circuit judge appoint him as appellant's attorney. Id. The circuit judge responded that he would do so in the event of appellant's apprehension. Id. The day after appellant's statement to Kentucky police, the public defender called the jail in Arkansas and left a message that appellant was not to make a statement about the crime, and subsequently called the Kentucky jail and requested that the jailer instruct appellant not to give a statement. Id. Thereafter, appellant called the attorney, and the attorney instructed him not to make a statement. Id. Appellant was extradited to Arkansas and gave a lengthy and incriminating recorded interview to Arkansas officials. 862 S.W.2d at 219. On appeal from the rulings on the motion to suppress the statements, appellant argued, inter alia, that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated when police failed to follow his lawyer's instructions not to question him. 862 S.W.2d at 221. The Supreme Court of Arkansas noted that the attorney had not yet been appointed to represent appellant at the time the attorney gave the instruction to the jailers; appellant had already made the statement to the detective in Kentucky the day before the attorney called; and although the attorney instructed appellant not to make any statements, appellant subsequently chose to ignore counsel's advice and gave additional statements. 862 S.W.2d at 221-22. The court affirmed the denial of the motion to suppress the statements and stated that it would do so even if the attorney were representing appellant at the time and even if the police failed to follow the attorney's instructions. 862 S.W.2d at 222. In so ruling, the court stated that "the failure of police to follow counsel's instructions does not affect the validity of an otherwise valid waiver." 862 S.W.2d at 222