"I want a lawyer" is all you should say—IF ANYTHING.
Do not say "I want a lawyer, dawg" because a court found that a person who had said "Just give me a lawyer, dawg" had not invoked their right to counsel. It was too vague. Maybe he was asking for an actual lawyer dog—a dog that practices law.
Do not say "I want a lawyer, dawg" because a court found that a person who had said "Just give me a lawyer, dawg" had not invoked their right to counsel. It was too vague. Maybe he was asking for an actual lawyer dog—a dog that practices law.
Comments
And if they say something in Spanish?
"Speak American!!!"
i don't need to argue semantics about whether "wanting" my right is the same as "invoking" my right 🙄
Then, celebrate STFU Friday, no matter what day of the week it is.
The intent is clear in "I want a lawyer, Dawg."
https://reason.com/2017/10/30/he-said-he-wanted-a-lawyer-dog-the-court/
They don't need reason or logic for injustice.
https://youtu.be/d-7o9xYp7eE?si=7tToYZE96UFEnP7X
And being under a very archaic form of the Napoleonic Code stitched into the common law framework, the way laws work are extremely inconsistent both in state and in comparison interstate
It sounds bonkers, right? But Salinas v. Texas provided the precedent that unless you EXPRESSLY invoke your right to stay silent, it can be used against you.
Let's not forget Willie Nash who is rotting in a MS prison for 12 yrs right now after being arrested for a misdemeanor, not properly searched, & still had a cell phone on him.
He got 12 yrs for a cell phone!
The Alabamafication of America.
1) Am I being detained?
2) I do not consent to a search.
3) I demand a lawyer.
4) I hereby invoke my right to remain silent.
And say no more.
https://www.findlaw.com/legalblogs/sixth-circuit/attorneys-cross-exam-nap-doesnt-mean-counsel-was-ineffective-1/
So, the court should either ask again or rule them to be mentally unfit for trial.