"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. It’s not clear how many lawyer dogs there are in Louisiana, and whether any would have been available to represent the human suspect in this case, other than to give the standard admonition in such circumstances to simply stop talking."
After obtaining a lawyer, the "public defender for Orleans Parish, Derwyn D. Bunton police are legally bound to stop questioning anyone who asks for a lawyer."
Bunton filed a motion to suppress/throw out Demesme’s statement which was rejected in trial court, appeals court and State Supreme Court. The reasoning was that there is a Louisiana case law that has ruled “if a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal . . . the cessation of questioning is not required.”
Justice Crichton - State Supreme Court Judge - 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.”
Article here.
-------------------------------
Does this incident present a state case law overriding the Consitution?
Do you believe that race played a factor in this incident?
Do you believe the type of crime - Demesme was charged with aggravated rape and indecent behavior with a juvenile - was important in the rulings?
No comments:
Post a Comment