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.
There’s no such thing as a “lawyer dog,” but that’s not what Demesme said. He asked the detective for a “lawyer, dawg.” To spell that out for the linguistically-challenged court, Demesme asked for a lawyer, and he called the detective “dawg,” a slangy synonym for ‘man, guy, fella, dude,’ instead of the more formal—and more deferential—‘officer.’
If the other judges agreed that Demesme was asking for a lawyer dog, then Demesme’s appeal was denied not because his words were ambiguous, but because he invoked his rights in Black English. There’s no such thing as a “lawyer dog,” but that’s not what Demesme said. He asked the detective for a “lawyer, dawg.”
I’m not joking. The Court ruled, 8-1, that “lawyer dog” was too ambiguous. The concurring opinion from Justice Scott Chrichton highlighted this supposed ambiguity.
Answer (1 of 5): There are two separate rights that you want to invoke when asking for a lawyer. The first is your Sixth Amendment right to counsel; the second is your Fifth Amendment right to refuse to answer any questions. The Supreme Court has ruled that both rights must be clearly and unequiv...
Question: Do Miranda rights have to be read at the time of arrest? Answer: It is a common misperception among the public that if the Miranda rights are not read then their arrest is somehow invalid. In other words, they believe that they can get out of their charge simply because the Miranda rights were not read, as if it’s some sort of “get out of jail free” card.
Question: When does the Miranda warning apply? Answer: There’s some misconception about when exactly it applies. And really I like to think of it as sort of a three-pronged requirement for Miranda to be required.
The Miranda warning is usually given when a person is arrested, though the Miranda Rights attach during any “custodial interrogation" (when a person is substantially deprived of their freedom and not free to leave) even if the suspect hasn't been formally arrested and are based on the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Many people believe that if they are arrested and not "read their rights," they can escape punishment. Not true. But if the police fail to read a suspect his or her Miranda rights, the prosecutor can't use for most purposes anything the suspect says as evidence against the suspect at trial. Of course, as with nearly all legal rules, there are exceptions (as where public safety is at issue).
And when a suspect in an interrogation told detectives to “just give me a lawyer dog,” the Louisiana Supreme Court ruled that the suspect was, in fact, asking for a “lawyer dog,” and not invoking his constitutional right to counsel.
Advertisement. Story continues below advertisement. Warren Demesme, then 22, was being interrogated by New Orleans police in October 2015 after two young girls claimed he had sexually assaulted them.
In a court brief, Bunton noted that police are legally bound to stop question ing anyone who asks for a lawyer. “Under increased interrogation pressure,” Bunton wrote, “Mr. Demesme invokes his right to an attorney, stating with emotion and frustration, ‘Just give me a lawyer.'”.
The punctuation, arguably critical to Demesme’s use of the sobriquet “dog,” was provided by the Orleans Parish District Attorney’s office in a brief, and then adopted by Louisiana Associate Supreme Court Justice Scott J. Crichton. Demesme subsequently made admissions to the crime, prosecutors said, and was charged with aggravated rape ...
Bunton’s motion to throw out Demesme’s statement was rejected by the trial court and the appeals court, so he took it to the state Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, in a ruling issued last Friday and first reported by Reason, could have denied the appeal without issuing a written ruling, which it does in most cases.
Crichton then concluded: “In my view, the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a ‘lawyer dog’ does not constitute an invocation ...
Prosecutor Kyle Daly responded that Demesme’s “reference to a lawyer did not constitute an unambiguous invocation of his right to counsel, because the defendant communicated that whether he actually wanted a lawyer was dependent on the subjective beliefs of the officers.”.
Advertisement. After making that statement, Demesme later admitted to the crimes and was charged with aggravated rape and indecent behavior with a juvenile. His public defender, of course, filed a motion to suppress his statement, since it was made after he asked for legal counsel. Advertisement.
the cessation of questioning is not required.”. Advertisement. Meaning that folks might want to just “remain silent” in the face of questioning by police. Judge Crichton also wrote, “In my view, ...
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.
The case involves a man who’d voluntarily agreed to speak with the police.
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.
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. Advertisement.
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.
The Supreme Court can forestall this constitutional subversion by taking Demesme’s case—presuming he appeals—and clarifying that a “reasonable police officer” may not deliberately ignore the intent of a suspect who colloquially but unequivocally asks for a lawyer.
Demesme was not referring to a dog with a license to practice law, since no such dog exists outside of memes. 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.”.