Dave Dormire, Appellant-Respondent v. Raymond Wilkinson, Appellee-Petitioner

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the right to counsel is invoked only when “a suspect clearly and unambiguously makes known his [or her] desire to have counsel present”
• holding on habeas review that it was not an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent for a state court to find the statement, “[c]ould I call my lawyer?” insufficient to invoke the right to counsel and mandate the termination of questioning
• holding on habeas review that it was not an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court precedent for a state court to find the statement, \[c]ould I call my lawyer?\ insufficient to invoke the right to counsel and mandate the termination of questioning
• finding the question was not unequivocal where the suspect had just asked if he could contact his girlfriend and officers could reasonably believe the suspect was merely inquiring about whether he had the right to call counsel
• “Can I have my lawyer here while we talk” ambiguous as to ability or desire
• “ ‘Could I call my lawyer’ was not an unambiguous request for counsel.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).