State v. Panetti

How courts have described this case

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

• ruling that even if the defendant’s question about having an attorney present during questioning amounted to an equivocal request for counsel, the officer’s continued questioning was constitutionally permissible
• involving an officer who reminded the accused about the right to stop the questioning and then asked if the interview could continue
• declining to consider whether an accused’s question, “Should I be answering these questions without my lawyer, or does it matter, or I mean I — I give up, anyway,” amounted to an equivocal request for counsel

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).