The Louisiana Supreme Court recently decided that a suspect in custody had failed to unequivocally invoke his right to counsel, based on his statement transcribed as, “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.”
The court found it obvious that “the defendant’s ambiguous and equivocal reference to a ‘lawyer dog’ does not constitute an invocation of counsel.”
We’re not making this up.
h/t to Simple Justice
From an alert reader:
Appellate Squawk 
I just knew the Squawk would be on this one like a dawg on a bown.
LikeLike
This is really insulting for my dog, who finished law school but failed the bar exam only because he couldn’t afford the bar review course. How’s he ever going to build a career with smears like this to his reputation?
LikeLike
Maybe he could run for President.
LikeLike
The incorrect punctuation and misspelling indicate he was done in by a court reporter from some rural western Parish. In New Orleans, she would have known it is “…lawyer, dawg.”
LikeLike
In New York, it would have been “lawyer motherfucker.” That would have made for a spicier concurrence.
LikeLike
But the court would have found that a sufficiently unequivocal request for a lawyer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
But would they have to assign 18B, since LAS couldn’t possibly suffer such language?
LikeLike
Certainly not. LAS is the nation’s oldest and largest provder of lawyer motherfuckers to the indigent.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Enough to make you howl at the moon.
LikeLike