Louisiana Supreme Court Does NOT Speak Jive! How to deny a suspect a lawyer with wilful stupidity

[muriel_volestrangler]

When Louisiana’s Supreme Court Justices go on trial for murdering punctuation, they should only be represented by Lawyer Dog. Because six of them read this …

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.

… and decided that the suspect had not been asking for a lawyer. What even is a lawyer dog? Was he asking for canine counsel? Are dogs allowed to sit for the bar exam in Louisiana? SO CONFUSING!

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, [which said police can’t come back for a second interrogation once a suspect has asked invoked his Sixth Amendment right to counsel].

...
Surely the New Orleans PD, which operates in a city that is 60% African American, would never deliberately transcribe an interrogation without appropriate punctuation to cover up a blatant Miranda violation. The suspect definitely did not say,

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, Dawg. ‘Cause this is not what’s up.

Read more at https://wonkette.com/625146/louisiana-supreme-court-does-not-speak-jive#k3Cixo0bZEMGFZUD.99

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

[unblock]

1. pretty much any utterance of the word "lawyer" constitutes a request for one, unless accompanied by

a negative word like "not" or "no".

you have to go pretty far afield to concoct a meaning other than that it's a request for a lawyer.