(1) The district properly denied Defendant’s motion to suppress custodial interview because Defendant’s request for counsel was ambiguous and equivocal.
(2) The district court did not abuse its discretion when it barred Defendant’s linguistics expert from testifying at trial.
(3) The district court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the victim’s prior assault adjudication under rule 403.
(4) Defendant’s argument that the district court abused its discretion when it excluded other-acts evidence to undermine the victim’s credibility was unpreserved.