Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Orleans rape suspect's 'lawyer dog' request lacking, state Supreme Court finds
http://www.nola.com/crime/index.ssf/2017/10/orleans_rape_suspects_lawyer_d.html#incart_river_indexA 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.
(snip)
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." "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(," Crichton wrote."
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.
(snip)
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." "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(," Crichton wrote."
A good editorial take on it here:
http://www.nola.com/opinions/index.ssf/2017/11/lawyer_dog_supreme_court.html
Are we to believe that New Orleans detectives who are interrogating a suspect would stare in incomprehension if a suspect says, "Gimme a lawyer, dog?" Let's say those detectives asked a person where he lived and that person said, "Kenner, brah," would police go looking for "Kennerbrah" on a map?
Of course not. That's why Justice Chrichton's written opinion is so problematic. It makes a suspect's use of the vernacular grounds for the state ignoring that suspect's request for legal counsel. The ruling pretends to not know how real human beings, including real Louisianians, talk. It pretends to be wholly unfamiliar with the vernacular when that's just about all anybody around here speaks.
Of course not. That's why Justice Chrichton's written opinion is so problematic. It makes a suspect's use of the vernacular grounds for the state ignoring that suspect's request for legal counsel. The ruling pretends to not know how real human beings, including real Louisianians, talk. It pretends to be wholly unfamiliar with the vernacular when that's just about all anybody around here speaks.
6 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
= new reply since forum marked as read
he was asking for a dog 
?
