In the dog house

Have you ever told someone something, and then had to explain that what you said wasn’t really what you meant?  Louisiana Defendant Warren Demesme knows that feeling all too well.

 

Two years ago, Demesme, who is accused of sexually assaulting two juveniles, waived his Miranda rights during two separate interviews with police.  During the second interview, Demesme stated “…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.” (Supreme Court of Louisiana, No. 2017-KK-0954, Louisiana Associate Supreme Court Justice Scott Crichton concurrence). 

 

I think many people would agree that Demesme was requesting an attorney, at which point the interrogation should have ended.  However, the Louisiana trial, appeals and supreme courts do not agree, and have ruled that Demesme merely “ambiguously referenced” an attorney, which per State v Payne, 2001-3196, p. 10 (La. 12/4/02), is not enough to stop the interview and provide the defendant with an attorney.  State v Payne held that “[i]f a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable police officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking his right to counsel, the cessation of questioning is not required.”

 

Demesme argued that he requested an attorney, and based on the alleged denial of same, he was seeking to suppress information told to one of the detectives, where he admitted to the sexual assault of one alleged victim, and denied the other.  The Louisiana courts are choosing to take his request literally, and believe that he asked for a lawyer dog (if anyone knows of a dog that is an actual lawyer, let me know). 

 

The courts have essentially determined that Demesme lost his argument due to his use of slang.  Many argue that this is a racial injustice based on the vernacular use of the word “dog,” as Demesme is African American.  Others believe that if the police had viewed the statement as having a comma between “lawyer” and “dog,” it would have been interpreted differently. 

 

Whatever the reason, it’s one of the most ridiculous rulings I’ve seen in a long time.  I mean, at minimum, Demesme should have at least been able to speak to McGruff the Crime Dog ®.