Supreme Court of Louisiana • 2017
228 So. 3d 1206
Full access
The written brief is free to read below. Subscribe to watch the video explainer and take the quiz.
Takeaway
In short, this case illustrates that, under the ambiguity rule applied by Justice Crichton, a suspect must make a clear request for counsel before police are required to end a custodial interview.
Demesme was accused of sexual misconduct involving minors. He voluntarily participated in two police interviews. At each interview, detectives advised him of his Miranda rights, and he stated that he understood and waived them.
During the second interview, Demesme said, in part, “why don’t you just give me a lawyer dog cause this is not what’s up.” He later argued that this statement invoked his right to counsel and required police to stop questioning.
The matter reached the Louisiana Supreme Court on Demesme’s writ application from the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeal. The Supreme Court denied the writ, leaving the lower-court disposition undisturbed. The Court’s denial order gave no reasons; Justice Crichton wrote separately, and Justice Hughes indicated that he would grant the writ.
Whether the Louisiana Supreme Court would grant review of Demesme’s claim that he invoked his right to counsel during the second police interview.
Holding
No. The Court denied the writ application.
Reasoning
The Court’s lead disposition was a summary denial of the writ. Because the order supplied no reasons, it did not itself set out a precedential analysis of whether Demesme’s statement invoked counsel under Miranda and Edwards.
Reasoning
Justice Crichton agreed that the writ should be denied but wrote to address the constitutional issue. In his view, the relevant question was whether Demesme’s words would have made a reasonable police officer understand that he was actually requesting counsel, rather than merely suggesting that he might want a lawyer.
reasoning continued?
Reasoning
Justice Hughes would have granted the writ application. The opinion provides no separate explanation of his reasoning, so it does not reveal whether he believed Demesme’s statement was an unambiguous request for counsel or whether he sought review for another reason.