3 ms·
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 c
by 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.