Wednesday, November 01, 2017

Give me a lawyer dog or Give me a lawyer, Dawg

Did the defendant say: Give me a lawyer dog or Give me a lawyer, Dawg.  According to the Supreme Court of Louisiana, the defendant could have wanted some sort of weird animal called a lawyer dog:
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 and does not violate Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct.1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981).

The memes from the case have been funny.  Here's one from Slate:


Anonymous said...

1. misleading -- the ambiguous part was not the dog, but the reference to the lawyer within the context of a rhetorical question ... if this is what you guys are thinking then i should get a lawyer... That is VERY different than what your post makes it out to be.
2. harmless.... the guy spoke to them for hours before this was ever uttered so it does not make a difference.
3. either way, though making fun of Louisiana judges may be easy and warranted, it is also sometimes (as in this case) a little unfair...just saying dawg

Anonymous said...

A fella went on a hunting trip and the owner of the hunting lodge he was at told him, "I'm gonna give you my best dog, his name is Lawyer."
Sure enough, the dg was great -- Hard worker, eager to please, did anything the hinter told him to do with no hesitation or complaint.
A couple of seasons later, the fella went back to the same place and he asked the owner if he could have the same dog again. "That dog is no good anymore!" Fearing some kind of hunting accident, the fella asked the owner what happened.
"Somebody went and changed his name to Judge!"
"Now all he does is sit on his rear end and howl all day."

Anonymous said...

This decision is nothing short of a fraud. It completely dismisses and ignores the true use of the term 'dawg' as a reference akin to dude or bro etc. It is no different than the defendant stating: just give me a lawyer, Mr. Officer. He was asking for a lawyer and the contortions made by the police and then the courts to state otherwise is evidence of the extent to which both can be dishonest in applying and construing the facts. In case there are any judges out there reading this who don't like the Miranda decision, it is still the law. It is disturbing the extent to which courts accept the bs advanced by cops, agents and prosecutors in these issues. Defense lawyers have a joke: The only people who lie to us much as our clients are law enforcement officers making claims about their own conduct relevant to suppression issues.