I expect courts in Louisiana to do everything they can to deny African-American criminal defendants their constitutional rights. It’s just how they roll. But I also expect courts, even in Louisiana, to not be so obvious about their racial animus. You can do a lot to deny rights to black suspects without twirling your mustache and turning the adjudication of justice into a complete joke.

Here, they’ve gone too far. Suspect Warren Demesme asked for a lawyer while he was being questioned by the police. The police did not provide a lawyer and the Louisiana Supreme Court denied his writ of certiorari, because they claim that his request for a lawyer was ambiguous. Here’s what Demesme said, according to the Court, from Reason:

“If y’all, this is how I feel, 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.”

I’m not joking. The Court ruled, 8-1, that “lawyer dog” was too ambiguous. The concurring opinion from Justice Scott Chrichton highlighted this supposed ambiguity.

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 and does not violate Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981).

First of all, it is the Louisiana Supreme Court, not Demesme, who is introducing ambiguity by relying on a clearly incorrect transcript of events. Demesme didn’t ask for a “lawyer dog,” he, CLEARLY, asked for a “lawyer, dawg.” Demesme’s statement is not ambiguous. The court has made it ambiguous by misreporting the statement. DAWG, not DOG. The court is using the wrong homophone, on purpose, to deny this man his rights.

Even arguing this means that I’m accepting the premise that the police didn’t know the difference between a “lawyer” and a “lawyer dog.” Another MORE REASONABLE result would have been for the police to stop questioning Demesme and go out and find an actual dog with a law degree. Even if we accept the misinformation contained in the court’s transcript, it’s still an unambiguous attempt to secure legal representation that the cops should have respected.

The judges on the Louisiana Supreme Court should be ashamed of themselves. But they’re not. Because they think that denying rights to black people is an UNAMBIGUOUS part of their job description.

He Said He Wanted a ‘Lawyer[,] Dog’; The Court Ruled That Was Too Vague [Reason]

Elie Mystal is the Executive Editor of Above the Law and the Legal Editor for More Perfect. He can be reached @ElieNYC on Twitter, or at elie@abovethelaw.com. He will resist.