DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Palus Politicus Louisiana Supreme Court: Man wasn't asking for a lawyer when he said, "Just give me a lawyer, dog."

8-1 ruling. Racism and tyranny.

http://nymag.com/daily/intelligencer/2017/10/judge-thinks-suspect-was-asking-for-a-lawyer-dog.html

In what must represent a new low for American jurisprudence, even in the fun-loving and sometimes unserious precincts of the Great State of Loosiana, a concurring opinion from the Supreme Court of the Pelican State held that a suspect being questioned by police had not successfully invoked his Sixth Amendment right to an attorney when he said, according to police records:

"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."

This statement was deemed inadequate by Justice Scott Crichton on grounds 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.”

I think we get too caught up in the Russia stuff to notice things like this these days.

Maybe it's all part of the plan for us to get distracted.

Can't wait to read how he should speak better english if he wants a lawyer when I check back later. Unless they have a breed of dog or service dog named 'lawyer dog' down there then they should know what he meant.

But if some rural white boy would’ve spoke in their own version of trash English, it would’ve been all good.

I'm here to see my client...



Seriously.. bad judges really reaching to cover for bad officers who manipulated the system.. everybody in the process should be disciplined.

Why dat's Uhmurkin, I tell you jus Uhmurkin. Let me hep y'all out. I don't bleeve thare is no dadgum Gubmint conspireacy to favor em good old boys over ours darker skinned ebonics speakin fellers. Ifin Billy Bob, n Jim Bob is ridin down the holler in they Shevuhlay pickemup truck drinkin a few bares, and runnin round Nekkid as a jaybird. M boys would get locked up fur munts two if they aunted some city slicker dog fur a lawyer.

That's him sitting over there. He likes to be called Johnny Football.

Another article on this subject:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/crime/ac...ticle-1.3601392

Warren Demesme is accused of first-degree rape and indecent behavior with a juvenile under 13. (ORLEANS PARISH SHERIFF'S OFFICE)

The rights of an accused child rapist were not violated when cops ignored his request for a "lawyer dog," the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled.

Warren Demesme was not clear enough about his wishes when he was interrogated by police, the judges ruled last week. Demesme is accused of first-degree rape and indecent behavior with a juvenile under 13.

"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," Demesme told cops during an interview, according to court records.

State Supreme Court Justice Scott Crichton wrote that authorities do not have to stop questioning suspects when they make a lawyer request that is "ambiguous or equivocal."

Demesme's "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," the judge wrote in the decision.

The suspect made the "lawyer dog" request after he was arrested in October 2015, according to the Times-Picayune newspaper.

Demesme confessed to sexually assaulting one child, according to the newspaper, and was trying to get his incriminating statements thrown out.

The 24-year-old suspect, who will be tried in Orleans Parish, faces a possible life sentence, the Times-Picayune reported.

On the importance of punctuation:

"It's time to eat Grandma."
"It's time to eat, Grandma."

Being an old guy I am OK with doing either one with Grandma

oh, my goodness....

Yeah, but if the racist white cops learned ebonics, they'd then be accused of cultural appropriation... really a no win situation for anyone...



But on a serious note, I tried to see if the opinion has been published or not because I wanted to see if there was any reference to follow up questions by the investigator about the lawyer dog statement, such as "Are you saying you want a lawyer?" It's probably what I would have done.


I'll highlight the part of the article where the judge explains a little about why he at least denied the motion:


So the Judge based his decision on a prior Court Ruling. He was interviewed twice, was read his Miranda Rights twice, and waived those Rights twice. Which also means he's twice been told he can invoke a lawyer at anytime and/or stop answering questions at any time.

Words matter. Can't get around that. The way he said it, he basically left the decision up to the investigator to get him a lawyer. It's not the investigator's decision to make, it's the defendant's. Now for you cynical Dawgs who think the investigator should 'just know' what he meant... maybe. But do you really want a cop to be able to get on the stand and testify that he "just knows" something and it be admissible? These kinds of rulings don't happen in a vacuum.

Yes, it's probably just playing semantics, but this is why his statement was IMO considered ambiguous to begin with. Which is why I'd like to know what happened after: did the investigator ask him to clarify what he meant? Did the defendant continue to answer questions? Did he ever mention a lawyer again? Did he ever simply stop answering questions? All this is relevant.

There was a case and I can't remember which one, where the defendant said asked "Maybe I should get a lawyer?" then tried to say that was him invoking his right to one. The Court said no because verbalizing your indecision about getting one is not the same as stating your decision to get one. Remember, Miranda doesn't say you have the Right for the cops to help you decide if you need a lawyer, their only obligation is to tell you that you have the Right to have one.


Again, I probably would have asked a clarifying question as I personally don't like playing in the gray area, but I have no doubt that the investigator was an experienced one to know that he wasn't going to give the defendant any more than he was obligated by law to do.

Kudos to you guys for caring about Due Process though! I wish more people would get educated on that topic.



http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2017/10/orleans_rape_suspects_lawyer_d.html

--------------------------------------------------------

A Harvey man's contention that he was denied his constitutional right to an attorney when New Orleans police ignored his request for a "lawyer dog" two years ago was rejected by the Louisiana Supreme Court.

Justices voted 6-1 last week to deny the writ application of Warren Demesme, who awaits trial in Orleans Parish on charges of first-degree rape and indecent behavior with a juvenile under 13.

Demesme, 24, was arrested in October 2015 on allegations that he sexually assaulted two juvenile victims, including the rape of one preteen girl. He faces a mandatory life sentence if convicted of the rape charge.

Warren Demesme, 24, is awaiting trial on charges of first-degree rape and indecent behavior with a victim under age 13.
Warren Demesme, 24, is awaiting trial on charges of first-degree rape and indecent behavior with a victim under age 13.
Demesme, represented by the Orleans Public Defenders, sought to suppress a purportedly incriminating statement made to NOPD sex crimes detective Nijel Baddoo. According to arrest documents, Demesme admitted to sexually assaulting one of the child accusers, but denied doing so to the other.

State Supreme Court Justice Scott J. Crichton concurred with the majority opinion issued late Friday (Oct. 27), but wrote separately on the matter to "spotlight the very important constitutional issue regarding the invocation of counsel during a law enforcement interview."

Demesme voluntarily agreed to two interviews with police regarding his alleged sexual misconduct with the minors. In both recorded interviews, Demesme was read his Miranda rights, said he understood them and waived those rights, Crichton wrote.

"Nonetheless, the defendant argues he invoked his right to counsel," Crichton explained. "And the basis for this comes from the second interview, where I believe the defendant ambiguously referenced a lawyer."

The ambiguity, Crichton wrote, was contained within Demesme's tortured syntax as he told police, "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 justice's written recitation of the line did not allow for the possibility that Demesme's "lawyer" and "dog" might be offset by a comma.

Convicted molester excoriated by former NOPD colleagues
Convicted molester excoriated by former NOPD colleagues
Officers lined up to express their disgust and indignation over Marcellus White's disgrace of their badge.

Crichton cited a 2002 state Supreme Court decision that requires a certain level of clarity in a suspect or defendant's request for counsel.

"As this court has written, 'If a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable police officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking his right to counsel, the cessation of questioning is not required,'" Crichton wrote.

"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."

Criminal District Judge Karen Herman initially denied Demesme's motion to suppress the statement on Sept. 16, 2016. The high court's affirmation of her decision clears the way for the damaging statement to be entered into evidence at trial. Demesme is scheduled for his next pretrial hearing before Herman on Jan. 12.

The defendant remains jailed in lieu of a $2 million bond.

I understand that this guy struggles with plain english, but he is also facing a life sentence and I think anyone acting in good faith knew or could have concluded his meaning was that he wanted a lawyer. That said, if he molested this child I hope he gets life.

I never said that.

I think what he said was enough. I understood it as him asking for a lawyer and they did too. That's all I'm saying. But the letter of the law disagrees. I guess the only winner here is Lawyer Dog, he's going to get paid.

If people really want to call anything justice, when it's obvious a man is asking for a lawyer, he gets one. Anything else is slimy.

....was he coerced? Or did he just keep answering questions because they kept asking?

I also think the fact that he started the statement with if plays in. Made it conditional (/ambiguous).

Slimy, yes, but letting him go free because of it?

Was he Mirandized? If so, he "knew" he didn't have to say anything.

I think the most important issue is "did he do it"?

They're not allowed to continue questioning once an attorney has been requested.

He didn't "request" an attorney. It was phrased as a question.

All he had to do was make it a definitive statement and stop answering questions.

Did they get right up to the line? It seems so.

Now if they coerced him to keep answering questions, they were in the wrong.

There's not a whole lot of context given.