Suspect ask "For a lawyer, dawg." Court says the request is too ambiguous
Options
King Ghidorah
Members Posts: 917 ✭✭✭✭✭
On Friday, the Louisiana Supreme Court declined to hear an important appeal involving the constitutional right to counsel. The case involves a man who’d voluntarily agreed to speak with the police. When Warren Demesme realized that the cops suspected him of child ? , he told them, per the trial court transcript, “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 U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that when a suspect asks for an attorney, the interrogation must end and a lawyer must be provided. But the police disregarded Demesme’s request, and the trial court ruled that the statements he subsequently made can be used to convict him.
Mark Joseph Stern Mark Joseph Stern
Demesme appealed, arguing that his Fifth and Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated. A state appeals court held that they were not, and now the state Supreme Court has declined to review that judgment, with only Justice Jefferson Hughes III voting to take Demesme’s appeal. Justice Scott Crichton penned a brief opinion concurring in the court’s decision not to hear the case. He wrote, apparently in absolute seriousness, that “the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a ‘lawyer dog’ does not constitute an invocation of counsel that warrants termination of the interview.”
Reason’s Ed Krayewski explains that, of course, this assertion is utterly absurd. Demesme was not referring to a dog with a license to practice law, since no such dog exists. Rather, as Krayewski writes, Demesme was plainly speaking in vernacular; his statement would be more accurately transcribed as “why don’t you just give me a lawyer, dawg.” The ambiguity rests in the court transcript, not the suspect’s actual words. Yet Crichton chose to construe Demesme’s statement as requesting Lawyer Dog, Esq., rather than interpreting his words by their plain meaning, transcript ambiguity notwithstanding.
In doing so, Crichton (and the trial court) may well have run afoul of Davis v. United States, the controlling U.S. Supreme Court precedent on this matter. In Davis, the suspect had told his interrogators: “Maybe I should talk to a lawyer.” No lawyer was provided, the interview continued, and the suspect made incriminating statements that were later used to secure his conviction. The Supreme Court held that none of this violated the Constitution. It reasoned that, in order to invoke his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, “the suspect must unambiguously request counsel.” The court elaborated:
If the suspect's statement is not an unambiguous or unequivocal request for counsel, the officers have no obligation to stop questioning him. … [H]e must articulate his desire to have counsel present sufficiently clearly that a reasonable police officer in the circumstances would understand the statement to be a request for an attorney.
The constitutional standard, then, is whether “a reasonable police officer in the circumstances” would interpret the suspect’s words as a request for counsel. Demesme’s statement plainly clears this bar. The Davis court was quite explicit that a suspect need not “speak with the discrimination of an Oxford don.” He need only get the point across. Yet because Crichton refused to interpret Demesme’s words as a reasonable police officer surely would, he asserted that no constitutional violation occurred.
Ironically, Crichton’s musing probably makes this case more vulnerable to U.S. Supreme Court review and reversal. The justice unintentionally illustrated a real problem: Courts can manipulate the 'reasonable police officer' standard to conform to their own syntactic preferences
http://www.theroot.com/la-court-rules-that-man-who-said-give-me-a-lawyer-dog-1820157543
Comments
-
So a dog can be a cop but not a lawyer?
Must be 2 sides -
-
This country is a joke
-
-
Bet they didn't rule out what he said when he "voluntarily spoke with police". And I'm willing to bet he used even more slang at that time.
Some racist ? ? , disguised as humor. -
Knowin how these courts operate, not surprisin
they literally take ? literal, that legal lingo can go a long way -
Knowin how these courts operate, not surprisin
they literally take ? literal, that legal lingo can go a long way
-
-
Damn I'm angry
-
Puppy meme
-
What's the most popular magazine in New Orleans?
Pleighboi -
This country is a joke
Interestingly enough , even black people laugh at the idea of “Ebonics” being pushed or asked to be recognized as a language nationally and abroad. This example here is exactly why it needs to be recognized -
They knew exactly what he meant.
-
His right to an attorney was definitely violated. But child ? ? What did he say that hung him? Who was the victim?
-
While I agree that they probably knew what he meant, when your getting interrogated for ? , its no time to be using slang.
In fact, I didn't understand this when I was younger and lost out on a lot of business opportunities, but a good rule of thumb is: never use slang when you're trying to explain something.
Because you might think you explained it perfectly because you understand the slang that you used, but the person that you explained it to might not have understood what you were saying.
Its better to use plain English. Even when you're in the hood with your homies, its best to use plain English. There's no ambiguity when you say, "I want a lawyer". -
Hate the railroading but before I climb this hill, I need more details about his case. Not gon fight the good fight for a child ?
-
he shouldn't have been running his mouth in the 1st place...........a better defense would have been to argue that he wasn't read his Miranda rights fully
if he was read his rights, then oh well that's what u get for telling on urself
can't say I really feel sorry for a child ?
-
It really dont matter if u were told your miranda rights or not
I been arrested a few times and never read my rights. Thats some TV ? -
It does matter . They just don’t have to say it as they arrest you like on tv.
But they do have to say it before a formal interrogation -
-
? up but if he was smart enough to ask for a lawyer, it was kinda on him to shut the ? up at that point
I dont agree he should be railroaded like that but they cant use ? you DIDNT say -
Inglewood_B wrote: »Hate the railroading but before I climb this hill, I need more details about his case. Not gon fight the good fight for a child ?
One thing has nothing to do with the other. -
While I agree that they probably knew what he meant, when your getting interrogated for ? , its no time to be using slang.
In fact, I didn't understand this when I was younger and lost out on a lot of business opportunities, but a good rule of thumb is: never use slang when you're trying to explain something.
Because you might think you explained it perfectly because you understand the slang that you used, but the person that you explained it to might not have understood what you were saying.
Its better to use plain English. Even when you're in the hood with your homies, its best to use plain English. There's no ambiguity when you say, "I want a lawyer".
Then that's where the ? stops. ? all that other ? . -
mryounggun wrote: »While I agree that they probably knew what he meant, when your getting interrogated for ? , its no time to be using slang.
In fact, I didn't understand this when I was younger and lost out on a lot of business opportunities, but a good rule of thumb is: never use slang when you're trying to explain something.
Because you might think you explained it perfectly because you understand the slang that you used, but the person that you explained it to might not have understood what you were saying.
Its better to use plain English. Even when you're in the hood with your homies, its best to use plain English. There's no ambiguity when you say, "I want a lawyer".
Then that's where the ? stops. ? all that other ? .
@mryounggun So you think it makes sense to use slang when you're trying to convey an important message? -
mryounggun wrote: »While I agree that they probably knew what he meant, when your getting interrogated for ? , its no time to be using slang.
In fact, I didn't understand this when I was younger and lost out on a lot of business opportunities, but a good rule of thumb is: never use slang when you're trying to explain something.
Because you might think you explained it perfectly because you understand the slang that you used, but the person that you explained it to might not have understood what you were saying.
Its better to use plain English. Even when you're in the hood with your homies, its best to use plain English. There's no ambiguity when you say, "I want a lawyer".
Then that's where the ? stops. ? all that other ? .
@mryounggun So you think it makes sense to use slang when you're trying to convey an important message?
When did I say that? I'm saying that the man said they knew what he meant...then continue with a bunch of other ? that doesn't change the fact that they knew what he meant. Either they knew what he meant or they didn't. Any faux-justification beyond that is ? .