Louisiana Supreme Court Rules That Man Was Asking For a "Lawyer Dog"

Stacko

Penultimate Amazing
S
Joined
Sep 3, 2007
Messages
10,837
By an 8-1 margin, Louisiana Supreme Court said a defendant wasn't asking for a lawyer when he said, "Just give me a lawyer, dog."

"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."

That was Warren Demesme talking to the police after he voluntarily agreed to be interviewed over accusations he sexually assaulted a minor. In an opinion concurring with the Louisiana Supreme Court's decision to deny the man a writ of certiorari, Justice Scott Chricton insists that Demesme only "ambiguously referenced a lawyer."

Chricton notes that under current legal precedent in Louisiana, if a suspect makes an "ambiguous or equivocal" reference to a lawyer—one where a "reasonable" cop could conclude that that the suspect only "might" be invoking his right to an attorney—police can continue their interrogation. "Maybe I need a lawyer," for example, is considered too ambiguous.
Click to expand...

Good grief.
 
... I wonder if he had said "give me a lawyer dude" they would've voted that he was asking for Jeff Bridge's character from "The Big Lebowski".
 
The court ruled 6-1* to deny the writ. Only Associate Justice Jefferson Hughes voted against the denial. He has not filed a dissent yet.


*A previous version of this article incorrectly said 8-1. Apologies.
Click to expand...
Did he keep talking after that or did he keep his mouth shut and demand a lawyer? I don't know if it matters but if it was me and I really wanted a lawyer I would shut the hell up at that point.

Maybe the people involved know more than we do about it and that this piece of crap was trying to weasel out of a child molestation conviction.

Or you could interpret it this way:

"Maybe I need a lawyer," for example, is considered too ambiguous.
Click to expand...
His statement starts with the word "If".

"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."
Click to expand...

Perhaps they replied, "Oh we don't think that you did it, we're just talking"

Ambiguous works for me. Dawg.
 
Last edited:
Clearly, a ruling from emotion. Understandably, Few want to give the tiniest break to someone who victimizes minors, but this is way over the line. If it stands on further appeal, we might as well pack it in and start allowing summary executions.
 
One way to make clear that this was wrong...I'll translate what he said into more educated verbiage:
Here is what I think: If you think I'm guilty of this crime, you're wrong. So, please, get me a lawyer, sir, because this is unacceptable.
Click to expand...
Now, is there any question that the above translation is anything but a request for a lawyer?
 
mgidm86 said:
Did he keep talking after that or did he keep his mouth shut and demand a lawyer? I don't know if it matters but if it was me and I really wanted a lawyer I would shut the hell up at that point.

Maybe the people involved know more than we do about it and that this piece of crap was trying to weasel out of a child molestation conviction.

Or you could interpret it this way:

His statement starts with the word "If".



Perhaps they replied, "Oh we don't think that you did it, we're just talking"

Ambiguous works for me. Dawg.
Click to expand...

That punctuation is the point.
 
It seems to me the only reasonable response to the man's statement is to clarify whether he's actually asking for a lawyer, but I'm not surprised that an interrogating police officer, either intentionally or by mistake, might fail to do that.

I'm only a little surprised that the court ruled the way it did. Precedent should be that if a suspect mentions an attorney, the police should confirm whether the suspect actually wants an attorney. But I don't pretend to live in a fantasy world where agents of the state respect the rights of citizens.
 
Rougarou said:
I'm only a little surprised that the court ruled the way it did. Precedent should be that if a suspect mentions an attorney, the police should confirm whether the suspect actually wants an attorney. But I don't pretend to live in a fantasy world where agents of the state respect the rights of citizens.
Click to expand...
I think we can accept that police officers and prosecutors will take advantage of criminals' stupidity while still expecting that a panel of 7 judges will set aside emotion and make their decisions based on legal/constitutional principles.
 
Babbylonian said:
I think we can accept that police officers and prosecutors will take advantage of criminals' stupidity while still expecting that a panel of 7 judges will set aside emotion and make their decisions based on legal/constitutional principles.
Click to expand...

BobTheCoward said:
It does kind of sound like bluster.
Click to expand...

Babbylonian said:
Bluster that includes a request for counsel.
Click to expand...

Exactly. The actions of the police are probably wrong, but somewhat understandable. The decision of the court, however, is unfortunate. This does not have anything to do with my opinion of whether or not the suspect is guilty, nor should it.
 
Last edited:
Rougarou said:
It seems to me the only reasonable response to the man's statement is to clarify whether he's actually asking for a lawyer, but I'm not surprised that an interrogating police officer, either intentionally or by mistake, might fail to do that.

I'm only a little surprised that the court ruled the way it did. Precedent should be that if a suspect mentions an attorney, the police should confirm whether the suspect actually wants an attorney. But I don't pretend to live in a fantasy world where agents of the state respect the rights of citizens.
Click to expand...

That may be what happened. I can’t find a record of case from the lower court. It is possible that when the defendant the police asked him to clarify whether he would answers questions at that time (without a lawyer). I don’t have that information.

The issue is that the statement “why don’t you just give me a lawyer” was not an unambiguous request to have an attorney present during questioning that would invoke a Fifth Amendment Right and require police to cease interrogation under Edwards v. Arizona. That statement is ambiguous and would require clarification. Of course other factors that I don’t have available could also influence that interpretation.

What is silly is Judge Crichton’s statement of concurrence and reasons supporting the denial of the writ of certiorari where he says that the defendant referenced a “lawyer dog”. I really don’t know what that is about. From why I have been able to quickly review, Crichton seems fairly solid as a judge. He has a lot of experience. He is sometimes a bit conservative, but also goes in favor of liberal decisions when he feels the law is correctly on that side.

I don’t know if this was meant to be a dig at the defendant’s vernacular. It seems like this may have just been a “wooosh” over the judge’s head actually not realizing that the transcript “give me a lawyer dog” was meant to be “give me a lawyer, dawg”. But if he goes to the trouble of writing an opinion on a denial of a writ of certiorari (which the court does not have to do) I would think he would at least ask someone about what the defendant might have meant by a “lawyer dog”.

I doubt any injustice has been done here. But it is just a very strange statement for the judge to make.
 
mgidm86 said:
... His statement starts with the word "If".
Click to expand...
If-then conditionals can be used to affirm something when the condition is true.

theprestige said:
Are you saying you speak jive?
Click to expand...
Whatever you think you know of language, you don't. BTW, you are writing in totally jive OE-Norman mishmash.

DevilsAdvocate said:
The issue is that the statement “why don’t you just give me a lawyer” was not an unambiguous request to have an attorney present during questioning...
Click to expand...
Apparently the legal profession, or those attempting to mimic it, needs training in linguistics. Cherry-picking part of the sentence to make your point is revealing of intent, but, ahem... not that of the defendant.


ETA: As misery loves company, your cockles might be warmed by General Kelly, defender of slavery, Chief of Staff in the "I also don't speak English, just Trumpese doublespeak" WH.
 
Last edited:
In the USA does a suspect under interrogation have the right to be questioned in their own language or have an interpreter present?

It may seem comical in a way but it is a serious matter - a dialect is a language (without a country :) ) so if the police are having trouble understanding their suspect shouldn't they have to take steps to ensure they are communicating in a way both sides can understand?
 
Darat said:
In the USA does a suspect under interrogation have the right to be questioned in their own language or have an interpreter present?

It may seem comical in a way but it is a serious matter - a dialect is a language (without a country :) ) so if the police are having trouble understanding their suspect shouldn't they have to take steps to ensure they are communicating in a way both sides can understand?
Click to expand...

The Miranda warning has to be "meaningful" according to the courts.

You can't read it in English to a person who only understands Japanese and claim it's all good.
 
He may have been confused. Obviously it's a Deputy Dawg.

Seriously though, it seems like disingenuous pedantry to claim "why don't you just give me a lawyer" is not a request for a lawyer.

If they're going to be that pernickety and insist the man didn't make a request but rather asked a question "why don't you..." I now wonder if they answered the question.
 
Jack by the hedge said:
He may have been confused. Obviously it's a Deputy Dawg.

Seriously though, it seems like disingenuous pedantry to claim "why don't you just give me a lawyer" is not a request for a lawyer.

If they're going to be that pernickety and insist the man didn't make a request but rather asked a question "why don't you..." I now wonder if they answered the question.
Click to expand...

It is Louisiana they will use any possible excuse to violate the rights of a black man.
 
The Shaggy DA?

Seriously...people actually believe he was asking for a canid lawyer?

And that since his request was "ambiguous" some of his Constitutional protections go out the window?
 
LTC8K6 said:
I doubt this would hold up in a higher court.

This is classic colloquial language in the USA.

"Gimme' a beer, dog."

"dog" is unrelated to "beer", just as it was unrelated to "lawyer".
Click to expand...
A beer dog -- one that brings you a beer when asked -- is a practically perfect pooch around my parts.
 
Babbylonian said:
Bluster that includes a request for counsel.
Click to expand...

I disagree. When someone swears on their children's lives, it is bluster and not actually an agreement to murder their children in the event of a lie. I can totally read this as similar.
 
Last edited:
In our ongoing legal update training, it’s generally the case that the suspect must “clearly and unambiguously” ask for an attorney..

If he kept talking, that would be taken as pretty clear evidence that he did not wish to “lawyer up”.

We have had many examples of this sort of thing put up from case law.
 
Bikewer said:
In our ongoing legal update training, it’s generally the case that the suspect must “clearly and unambiguously” ask for an attorney..

If he kept talking, that would be taken as pretty clear evidence that he did not wish to “lawyer up”.

We have had many examples of this sort of thing put up from case law.
Click to expand...

Reading the decision that would seem to be resting more on the use of the word why, instead of dog.

“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.”

The decision is here.

http://www.lasc.org/opinions/2017/17KK0954.sjc.addconc.pdf
 
Bikewer said:
In our ongoing legal update training, it’s generally the case that the suspect must “clearly and unambiguously” ask for an attorney..

If he kept talking, that would be taken as pretty clear evidence that he did not wish to “lawyer up”.

We have had many examples of this sort of thing put up from case law.
Click to expand...

Why must it be clearly and unambiguously? If it is ambiguous, why not try and get them one, anyway?

Maybe instead you should explain to suspects why they should want a lawyer and wait for them to clearly and unambiguously state they do not wish a lawyer before questioning them.
 
Last edited:
This is just too ridiculous. The suspect is clearly has less than full command of the language. 'Why don't you get me a lawyer, dog' is not even rhetorical, it is a direct order in slang.
 
Thermal said:
This is just too ridiculous. The suspect is clearly has less than full command of the language. 'Why don't you get me a lawyer, dog' is not even rhetorical, it is a direct order in slang.
Click to expand...

There is an alternative. It could be the use of incredulity to cause an emotional response. Like saying, "well if you don't believe me then we are done as couple" is not a declaration that the person is ending the relationship.
 
Are the justices elected?

It could be that this is simply a case where they think the dude is guilty, and don't want to be forced to throw out evidence because of some questionable judgemente by police. And who can blame them?

I generally go for the "liberal" side on things like this. It's rather obvious that he was asking for a lawyer, and so he should have gotten one. On the other hand, I don't know anything about the case, but if he's clearly guilty, I would be looking for any excuse I could to not throw out the evidence against him. If I could declare his statement ambiguous, I might.
 
BobTheCoward said:
There is an alternative. It could be the use of incredulity to cause an emotional response. Like saying, "well if you don't believe me then we are done as couple" is not a declaration that the person is ending the relationship.
Click to expand...

That's true, but in the quasi-meaningless slang he used ('this is how I feel'), I would take it as a direct request, more like a parent saying 'why don't you clean up your room'. It is not a query as to the reasons, it is an instruction.
 
Thermal said:
This is just too ridiculous. The suspect is clearly has less than full command of the language. 'Why don't you get me a lawyer, dog' is not even rhetorical, it is a direct order in slang.
Click to expand...
I dunno. Seems like there's three problems with the core statement: If you think I did it, then why don't you get me a lawyer?

First, taking the question at face value, the answer is that it's not the police's decision to make.

Second, it's a non sequitur. The decision to get a lawyer has nothing to do with whether the police think he's guilty.

Third, if the suspect chooses to continue talking, rather than insisting on a lawyer, or simply saying nothing until one is provided, that's their responsibility. Not the police's fault.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom