> Everything about a "lawyer dog" is just bad journalism. No. Not at all. From [0]: > On Friday, the Louisiana Supreme Court declined to review the trial cour

> Everything about a "lawyer dog" is just bad journalism. No. Not at all. From [0]: > On Friday, the Louisiana Supreme Court declined to review the trial court’s ruling in State v. Demesme refusing to exclude incriminating statements that Desmesme allegedly made to a detective. The vote was 6-1 but there was no majority opinion—the court just denied review and noted one justice had voted to grant it. But Justice Crichton, one of the six concurring justices, did write a very brief opinion, saying he wanted to “spotlight the very important constitutional issue” presented. The conclusion above—including “reference to a ‘lawyer dog'”—is taken almost word-for-word from that opinion. The conclusion mentioned in the quote above is in the article linked at [0]. The article is well worth reading. > Since that wasn't an unambiguous statement saying he wanted a lawyer... When you look at the entire sentence, it is clear that it really, really unambiguous is to anyone who isn't interested in jailing someone who talks funny: > [I]f 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, [dawg] cause this is not what’s up. "If you think I did it, just give me a lawyer." The desire for a lawyer is clear as day to anyone who's not using motivated reasoning to fabricate excuses to "justify" trampling over the rights of regular folks. [0] <https://www.loweringthebar.net/2017/11/lawyer-dog.html https://www.loweringthebar.net/2017/11/lawyer-dog.html>