3 ms·

I was skeptical, but a quick web search verified that this 100% happened - recently even, in 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02

I was skeptical, but a quick web search verified that this 100% happened - recently even, in 2017. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02/the-suspect-told-police-give-me-a-lawyer-dog-the-court-says-he-wasnt-asking-for-a-lawyer/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/11/02... > The Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the suspect was, in fact, asking for a “lawyer dog,” .. That's bad, dawg.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
ChrisKnott 5y ago
From reading the actual concurrence [0] I would say that, yes, it does appear from the way he quotes "lawyer dog" near the end, that the judge thought the suspect was making a flippant remark referring to a theoretical dog that is a lawyer, however, (as the quotes from the lawyers later in the WP article point out) it would seem the actual key point was that he prefaced his request for a lawyer with an 'if' clause, and the precedent is that the request must not be "ambiguous or equivocal". The full quote - "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, dawg, ’cause this is not what’s up." - can be argued to be equivocal. It's a common construction to express a hypothetical, e.g. "well if that's how you feel we should cancel the wedding" etc. The precedent should really be the other way around. You should treat any reference to wanting a lawyer as legitimate unless unambiguously established to not be. [0] https://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdf https://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdf
- jakelazaroff 5y ago
  In the WaPo article, it's the DA who is saying that the request could be interpreted as subjective, not the Supreme Court justice. The relevant line in the concurrence: > 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, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). "Equivocal" probably refers to Demesme saying "if y'all think I did it", but nonetheless it's hard for me to read the concurrence as anything other than a bad faith interpretation of his request for counsel.
  - ChrisKnott 5y ago
    Yeah, I wasn't trying to suggest that the quotes were from the judge, just that they imply the issue that was actually being argued over in the case.

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

ChrisKnott 5y ago

From reading the actual concurrence [0] I would say that, yes, it does appear from the way he quotes "lawyer dog" near the end, that the judge thought the suspect was making a flippant remark referring to a theoretical dog that is a lawyer, however, (as the quotes from the lawyers later in the WP article point out) it would seem the actual key point was that he prefaced his request for a lawyer with an 'if' clause, and the precedent is that the request must not be "ambiguous or equivocal". The full quote - "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, dawg, ’cause this is not what’s up." - can be argued to be equivocal. It's a common construction to express a hypothetical, e.g. "well if that's how you feel we should cancel the wedding" etc. The precedent should really be the other way around. You should treat any reference to wanting a lawyer as legitimate unless unambiguously established to not be. [0] https://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdf https://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdf

jakelazaroff 5y ago
In the WaPo article, it's the DA who is saying that the request could be interpreted as subjective, not the Supreme Court justice. The relevant line in the concurrence: > 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, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981). "Equivocal" probably refers to Demesme saying "if y'all think I did it", but nonetheless it's hard for me to read the concurrence as anything other than a bad faith interpretation of his request for counsel.
- ChrisKnott 5y ago
  Yeah, I wasn't trying to suggest that the quotes were from the judge, just that they imply the issue that was actually being argued over in the case.