In this task, you are given a text of many news articles seperated by special token "|||||". Your task is to summarize them.

A Harvey man's contention that he was denied his constitutional right to an attorney when New Orleans police ignored his request for a "lawyer dog" two years ago was rejected by the Louisiana Supreme Court. 
  
 Justices voted 6-1 last week to deny the writ application of Warren Demesme, who awaits trial in Orleans Parish on charges of first-degree rape and indecent behavior with a juvenile under 13. 
  
 Demesme, 24, was arrested in October 2015 on allegations that he sexually assaulted two juvenile victims, including the rape of one preteen girl. He faces a mandatory life sentence if convicted of the rape charge. 
  
 Demesme, represented by the Orleans Public Defenders, sought to suppress a purportedly incriminating statement made to NOPD sex crimes detective Nijel Baddoo. According to arrest documents, Demesme admitted to sexually assaulting one of the child accusers, but denied doing so to the other. 
  
 State Supreme Court Justice Scott J. Crichton concurred with the majority opinion issued late Friday (Oct. 27), but wrote separately on the matter to "spotlight the very important constitutional issue regarding the invocation of counsel during a law enforcement interview." 
  
 Demesme voluntarily agreed to two interviews with police regarding his alleged sexual misconduct with the minors. In both recorded interviews, Demesme was read his Miranda rights, said he understood them and waived those rights, Crichton wrote. 
  
 "Nonetheless, the defendant argues he invoked his right to counsel," Crichton explained. "And the basis for this comes from the second interview, where I believe the defendant ambiguously referenced a lawyer." 
  
 The ambiguity, Crichton wrote, was contained within Demesme's tortured syntax as he told police, "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." 
  
 The justice's written recitation of the line did not allow for the possibility that Demesme's "lawyer" and "dog" might be offset by a comma. 
  
 Crichton cited a 2002 state Supreme Court decision that requires a certain level of clarity in a suspect or defendant's request for counsel. 
  
 "As this court has written, 'If a suspect makes a reference to an attorney that is ambiguous or equivocal in that a reasonable police officer in light of the circumstances would have understood only that the suspect might be invoking his right to counsel, the cessation of questioning is not required,'" Crichton wrote. 
  
 "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." 
  
 Criminal District Judge Karen Herman initially denied Demesme's motion to suppress the statement on Sept. 16, 2016. The high court's affirmation of her decision clears the way for the damaging statement to be entered into evidence at trial. Demesme is scheduled for his next pretrial hearing before Herman on Jan. 12. 
  
 The defendant remains jailed in lieu of a $2 million bond. ||||| 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. |||||
A Louisiana man being questioned by police in the sexual assault of two juveniles at one point said the following, per a police transcript: "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." As Elie Mystal writes at Above the Law, it seems obvious that the transcript should more accurately read, "I know that I didn't do it so why don't you just give me a lawyer, dawg, cause this is not what's up." But the Louisiana Supreme Court disagrees and has rejected Warren Demesme's claim that police rejected his right to counsel, reports the Times-Picayune of New Orleans. And its decision hinged on that all-important distinction between "dog" and "dawg," and the lack of a comma in the transcript. "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," writes Justice Scott Crichton. That is, the court ruled that because Demesme seemed to ask for a "lawyer dog," it was unclear that he wanted an actual lawyer, and so all his statements are fair game. The ruling doesn't take into account the possibility that the police transcript of Demesme's statement was off the mark. The 24-year-old is awaiting trial on charges of first-degree rape and indecent behavior with a juvenile under 13, and he faces a mandatory life sentence if convicted on the rape charge.