4 ms·

No, it's wildly misleading: >And the basis for this comes from the second interview, where I believe the defendant ambiguously referenced a lawyer— prefacing t

by treis 8y ago

No, it's wildly misleading: >And the basis for this comes from the second interview, where I believe the defendant ambiguously referenced a lawyer— prefacing that statement with “if y’all, 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.” As this Court has written, “[i]f a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable police officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking his right to counsel, the cessation of questioning is not required.” State v. Payne, 2001- 3196, p. 10 (La. 12/4/02), 833 So.2d 927, 935 (citations omitted and emphasis in original); see also Davis v. United States, 512 U.S. 452, 462, 114 S.Ct. 2350, 2357, 129 L.Ed.2d 362 (1994) (agreeing with the lower courts’ conclusion that the 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 that warrants termination of the interview and does not violate Edwards v. Arizona, https://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdf https://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdf It's pretty obvious that the judge does not think that there are lawyer dogs and that the word "dog" in that sentence has no bearing on the judges opinion.

unclenoriega 8y ago
I was ready to agree with you, but the fact that opinion quotes "lawyer dog" makes me question what the judge actually thinks (or is claiming to think). Clearly it should be "lawyer, dog," instead of "lawyer dog". The judge does seem to be quoting the transcript, however, which leads us to the point of the article.
- treis 8y ago
  I don't know why you're questioning anything. The judge gave his reasoning. He said: >defendant ambiguously referenced a lawyer— prefacing that statement... It's crystal clear that he is referring to this portion of the defendants statement: >if y’all, this is how I feel, if y’all think I did it I'm a little bit stunned that people actually think this is how the legal system works. You think that a prosecutor would seriously argue that a defendant didn't request a lawyer because they added "dog" to the end of that request? Or that a judge would take that argument seriously?
  - JshWright 8y ago
    'In my view, the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a “lawyer dog” does not constitute an invocation of counsel that warrants termination of the interview and does not violate' Stunned or not, it seems pretty clear the judge is referring specifically to the phrase "lawyer dog" in the summary of their judgement. I don't see how 'reference to a "lawyer dog"' could be interpreted any other way...
    - treis 8y ago
      In this case ambiguous or equivocal means: >ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable police officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking his right to counsel So the judge isn't saying that he is confused and thinks the statement is ambiguous because he doesn't know what a lawyer dog is. He's saying it's ambiguous because the statement didn't clearly request a lawyer, canine or otherwise. This isn't anything confusing to a lawyer or someone familiar with the law. It's a well known legal standard. What the article claims is equivalent to saying that Java takes a lot of memory because the code is so verbose. It's just so obviously wrong to anyone with legal knowledge.
      - JshWright 8y ago
        That's all well and good, but the judge is quite clear that it is 'the defendant’s ... reference to a “lawyer dog”' that is 'ambiguous and equivocal'. I'd be curious about your views on why the judge chose to include that sentence if the 'reference to a “lawyer dog”'' wasn't relevant to his decision?
        treis 8y ago
        >That's all well and good, but the judge is quite clear that it is 'the defendant’s ... reference to a “lawyer dog”' that is 'ambiguous and equivocal'. In that it was not a clear and unambiguous invocation of the right to counsel. >I'd be curious about your views on why the judge chose to include that sentence if the 'reference to a “lawyer dog”'' wasn't relevant to his decision? I don't know why he chose to quote "lawyer dog" and not more or less of the defendant's quote. I'm not a mind reader. But when he writes: >I believe the defendant ambiguously referenced a lawyer It's clear that the ambiguity he is arguing does not derive from his lack of knowledge of what a lawyer dog is.

by treis 8y ago

unclenoriega 8y ago

I was ready to agree with you, but the fact that opinion quotes "lawyer dog" makes me question what the judge actually thinks (or is claiming to think). Clearly it should be "lawyer, dog," instead of "lawyer dog". The judge does seem to be quoting the transcript, however, which leads us to the point of the article.

treis 8y ago
I don't know why you're questioning anything. The judge gave his reasoning. He said: >defendant ambiguously referenced a lawyer— prefacing that statement... It's crystal clear that he is referring to this portion of the defendants statement: >if y’all, this is how I feel, if y’all think I did it I'm a little bit stunned that people actually think this is how the legal system works. You think that a prosecutor would seriously argue that a defendant didn't request a lawyer because they added "dog" to the end of that request? Or that a judge would take that argument seriously?
- JshWright 8y ago
  'In my view, the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a “lawyer dog” does not constitute an invocation of counsel that warrants termination of the interview and does not violate' Stunned or not, it seems pretty clear the judge is referring specifically to the phrase "lawyer dog" in the summary of their judgement. I don't see how 'reference to a "lawyer dog"' could be interpreted any other way...
  - treis 8y ago
    In this case ambiguous or equivocal means: >ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable police officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking his right to counsel So the judge isn't saying that he is confused and thinks the statement is ambiguous because he doesn't know what a lawyer dog is. He's saying it's ambiguous because the statement didn't clearly request a lawyer, canine or otherwise. This isn't anything confusing to a lawyer or someone familiar with the law. It's a well known legal standard. What the article claims is equivalent to saying that Java takes a lot of memory because the code is so verbose. It's just so obviously wrong to anyone with legal knowledge.
    - JshWright 8y ago
      That's all well and good, but the judge is quite clear that it is 'the defendant’s ... reference to a “lawyer dog”' that is 'ambiguous and equivocal'. I'd be curious about your views on why the judge chose to include that sentence if the 'reference to a “lawyer dog”'' wasn't relevant to his decision?
      - treis 8y ago
        >That's all well and good, but the judge is quite clear that it is 'the defendant’s ... reference to a “lawyer dog”' that is 'ambiguous and equivocal'. In that it was not a clear and unambiguous invocation of the right to counsel. >I'd be curious about your views on why the judge chose to include that sentence if the 'reference to a “lawyer dog”'' wasn't relevant to his decision? I don't know why he chose to quote "lawyer dog" and not more or less of the defendant's quote. I'm not a mind reader. But when he writes: >I believe the defendant ambiguously referenced a lawyer It's clear that the ambiguity he is arguing does not derive from his lack of knowledge of what a lawyer dog is.