In Louisiana, asking for a lawyer doesn't exactly mean you're asking for a lawyer

The suspect told police ‘give me a lawyer dog.’ The court says he wasn’t asking for a lawyer.

Crichton noted that Louisiana case law has ruled that “if a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal . . . the cessation of questioning is not required.” Crichton then concluded: “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.”

Guilty or not it's your constitutional right to an attorney when you ask for one, not whenever the state deems it necessary you have one.

I mean the guy admitted to the crime after he asked for a lawyer which should have been inadmissible.

But than again the guy raped a teen.

Would be hilarious if there actually is a Lawyer dog out there.



Times are Ruff? Call 1800-Law-Dog He works hard for you. Does take cases for treats and walks. Might crap on the floor of the court chambers.

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

That doesn't make a statement inadmissible...defendants and suspects can make any statement that they want to, including self-incriminating ones, at any time. If they do so after they have been mirandized (which I assume that he had at that point), anything said is fair game.

The onus is on the suspect to exercise their right to remain silence, even without the presence of a lawyer.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: PraetorianAZ

That doesn't make a statement inadmissible...defendants and suspects can make any statement that they want to, including self-incriminating ones, at any time. If they do so after they have been mirandized (which I assume that he had at that point), anything said is fair game.

The onus is on the suspect to exercise their right to remain silence, even without the presence of a lawyer.

Once he asked for an attorney they were no longer allowed to question him without his attorney present. Doing so is a violation of his 5th and 6th amendment rights.

a reply to: links234

You have the right to an attorney, but that doesn't mean you automatically get one handed to you.

I think that judge's ruling on the issue is ludicrous, and anyone under the age of 75 would know what the guy meant, but your implication that a lawyer is "necessary" isn't accurate. You absolutely have the right to represent yourself from detention/arrest all the way through trial (unless you're determined mentally incapable of self representation).

Maybe asking for a "lawyer dog" is proof that he's mentally unfit to go it alone?

ETA:

After looking at it a little more, I think that the judge's ruling was correct--the word "dog" had nothing to do with the ruling. My comment above was based on me only reading headlines like a bad little boy.

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: links234

You have the right to an attorney, but that doesn't mean you automatically get one handed to you.

I think that judge's ruling on the issue is ludicrous, and anyone under the age of 75 would know what the guy meant, but your implication that a lawyer is "necessary" isn't accurate. You absolutely have the right to represent yourself from detention/arrest all the way through trial (unless you're determined mentally incapable of self representation).

Maybe asking for a "lawyer dog" is proof that he's mentally unfit to go it alone?

I get what you are saying but the second he asked for an attorney they were not allowed to question him further and should have waited for the mans attorney.

But since he asked for a lawyer than called the cop a dog they figured they could bend his statement into him not asking for a real attorney and push to get the conviction.

That's the whole reason they went to court because if the guys attorney could get the judge to agree that he actually did ask for a lawyer then all the admissions he made would be thrown out.

But the judge sided with the state and said he didnt ask for a real attorney.

Breaking news: This was established in a 1994 SCOTUS ruling, so it's not unique to Louisiana.

That being said, his public defender didn't do him any favors by misquoting him in the motion to suppress. He didn't do himself any favors by starting his statement with "if you think I did it..." In essence, that makes the statement "if you think I did it then give me a lawyer." I'm not sure why his public defender did what he did, nor why the prosecutor tried to make it about a comma, rather than the first part of the statement.

"I want a lawyer." is about as unambiguous as it can get.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

It is also a common misconception that failure to be marandized upon arrest makes any statements inadmissible or your case dismissed, but it does not. Although they certainly make it appear that way to us serfs.

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

I said nothing about questioning by police, I specifically discussed the individual's ability to still make statements. We don't know if his subsequent comments were because of continued interrogation--we don't have the video/audio, just claims.

That said, I considered the judge's ruling, and it has nothing to do with the term "dog," but in the way that he referenced an attorney. He said, “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.”

He presented an if-then statement to the police. The police can easily (obviously, because it worked) say that they didn't understand that to be a direct request for a lawyer at that time.

I think that it's pretty underhanded of them, and I think that any time a suspect invokes the word "attorney" during questioning, that the police should cease questioning and bring one in out of an abundance of caution, but obviously different states have different laws governing that.

My question would be if he reasserted his desire for an attorney, or just kept on with the interrogation, never mentioning it again. If never mentioned again, that actually bolsters the officers' side, not the suspect's.

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

He did not directly ask, he made an if-then statement, tantamount to "if you think I did it, then get me a lawyer."

I think that the interrogating officers should have immediately got his lawyer, but it would seem that the law is/was on the side of the officers in this instance.

originally posted by: lightedhype
a reply to: SlapMonkey

It is also a common misconception that failure to be marandized upon arrest makes any statements inadmissible or your case dismissed, but it does not. Although they certainly make it appear that way to us serfs.

Sometimes, but not all of the time. But anything stated prior to being mirandized is very easy for a competent lawyer dog to get dismissed in court.

a reply to: SlapMonkey

He presented an if-then statement to the police. The police can easily (obviously, because it worked) say that they didn't understand that to be a direct request for a lawyer at that time.

Exactly. If a person presents it that way, it is always going to be taken as an ambiguous reference to an attorney, just like "do you think I need an attorney?" is going to be ignored.

I don't necessarily agree that an attorney needs to be brought simply at the mention of the word, though. I think, the next question needs to be "are you asking for an attorney?" Yes or no, the issue is settled unequivocally right then and there.

a reply to: links234

Complete BS.

Where punctuation occurs in a spoken sentence is far more ambiguous than the request for the "lawyer dog". The perp obviously meant "give me a lawyer, dog" which is definitive in the request for a lawyer, and ambiguous in the description of the officer. For the court to say that he unequivocally meant "give me a lawyer dog" instead of "give me a lawyer, dog" is utter nonsense and they should be ashamed.

a reply to: Shamrock6

I'm looking at it more from the prosecution's side--if an attorney is always brought in, there's never going to be an issue with admissibility of statements or whether or not someone's rights were denied.

I've seen too many slam-dunk cases get screwed over bad decisions at the start of an investigation...the devils really are in the details, and sometimes it's best to err on the side of caution, as it generally works out better in the long run of trying the case.

But I do agree that your follow-up question would suffice to alleviate any admissibility issues.

I hope I didn't have to provide any of the funds for that whack-o's lawyer...

a reply to: PraetorianAZ

Innocent people, on occasion, confess to crimes they didn't commit. Not saying that's the case here, but if he asked for a lawyer, he should've gotten one.

a reply to: links234

He didn't ask for a lawyer, he asked for a lawyer dog which is something that does not exist so . . .

originally posted by: JDeLattre89
a reply to: links234

He didn't ask for a lawyer, he asked for a lawyer dog which is something that does not exist so . . .

JD, my dog.....that just isn't right gangsta....later G.....you still my dog

originally posted by: SlapMonkey
a reply to: links234

You have the right to an attorney, but that doesn't mean you automatically get one handed to you.

I think that judge's ruling on the issue is ludicrous, and anyone under the age of 75 would know what the guy meant, but your implication that a lawyer is "necessary" isn't accurate. You absolutely have the right to represent yourself from detention/arrest all the way through trial (unless you're determined mentally incapable of self representation).

Maybe asking for a "lawyer dog" is proof that he's mentally unfit to go it alone?

ETA:

After looking at it a little more, I think that the judge's ruling was correct--the word "dog" had nothing to do with the ruling. My comment above was based on me only reading headlines like a bad little boy.

What did you read that was different than me? There was nothing ambiguous about it, the guy said "If you think I did it, I don't care, I know I didn't do it, Just give me a lawyer."

What is ambiguous about that?

You MIGHT believe the part of the article that says because it was based on the "subjective" opinion of his guilt that it's not applicable, but that's NOT what the judge said;

Crichton then concluded: “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.”

There ya go -- the Judge ruled specifically based on the use of the word "Dog." Justice Crichton, the Judge, direct quote.

I might add, he didn't say "Give me a lawyer Dog." He said "Give me a lawyer, dog."

HUGE difference, and unless the court wants to pretend it's stupid, it should know better -- there are no lawyer dogs, so how could they even assume that's what he meant?

I also don't know if you have any idea how the court system in the united states works, but -- from the second you get locked up and booked, you're handed a document that allows you to sign up for a public defender. This was clearly not done here, and it IS standard practice and IS your right. You can DENY council and represent yourself, but attorneys are provided for you, it's an OPT OUT thing, not an OPT IN thing. It even says as much IN the Miranda.

You have the right to remain silent and refuse to answer questions.
Anything you say may be used against you in a court of law.
You have the right to consult an attorney before speaking to the police and to have an attorney present during questioning now or in the future.
If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be appointed for you.

a reply to: SRPrime

Maybe where you live that’s the case but it’s most assuredly not how it works where I’m at, nor has that been the case in any jurisdiction I’ve worked in.

You get arrested, booked, appear before a judge at some point and tell him whether you have an attorney, need one, or don’t want one. The booking deputies aren’t handing out forms to apply for a PD.

So no, that’s not standard practice in the US.