That article is almost certainly wrong, or at least misleading. The question at hand was whether this statement was a direct request for a counsel, or just cha

That article is almost certainly wrong, or at least misleading. The question at hand was whether this statement was a direct request for a counsel, or just chatter. "This is how I feel, if y’all think I did it, I know that I didn’t do it so why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog ’cause this is not what’s up.” The court decided " (agreeing with the lower courts’ conclusion that the 1 2 statement “[m]aybe I should talk to a lawyer” is not an unambiguous request for a lawyer). In my view, the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a “lawyer dog” does not constitute an invocation of counsel". There's a little bit of cultural bias in the "dog" part, but the main thrust is that the defendant didn't make a clear statement of invocation. IMO the law as it stands is horrid -- legal representation should be the default unless explicitly waived, not the reverse, but under the current law the decision turned on whether that statements was a demand for a lawyer or merely a suggestion. http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdfrt http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdfrt