Commonwealth v. Vincent

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding trial judge did not err in finding “defendant’s statements concerning possibly needing or wanting a lawyer were ambiguous and equivocal” when defendant continued to talk about incident without hesitation after making statements (quotation omitted)
• statement not suppressed where defendant asked officers whether he “should get a lawyer” and said, “I think I might need [a lawyer],” and continued volunteering information about incident
• “defendant’s statements concerning possibly needing or wanting a lawyer were ambiguous and equivocal, and would not reasonably be understood in the circumstance to constitute an invocation of the right to counsel” [quotations and citation omitted]

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).