It always felt like such a contradiction that police could lie to you but had to read you your miranda rights.
Apparently police are allowed some threshold of deception (e.g. can outright lie but can't pretend to be your lawyer) but since 99% of people don't know this it really undermines the purpose.
Like if the police can lie, but tell you that you get an attorney, how is a client supposed to know that your lawyer can't lie to you too?
Because the lawyer is there for you, hopefully paid for by you and therefore independent.
If not, you have to assume the public defender is at least friends with the police and therefore may not have your best interests in mind. That system is fucked, but I'm not sure I know a solution for folks who can't afford representation. Thoughts?
> assume the public defender is at least friends with the police and therefore may not have your best interests in mind
What? Police fucking hate public defenders as a general rule. Like sure, a police officer might be familiar with a public defender who frequently works cases brought by that officer’s precinct. But it’s perfectly clear to both of them that they work in opposition. Absent a few extremely rural and/or corrupt cases I do not believe this friendship is often the case.
I know that's what TV says, but my anectdata is the opposite of that.
I've known multiple attorneys in the public defenders office in three different courts. One rural, two very urban. They absolutely had relationships with both street officers and leadership in the precincts of the city and town.
Apparently police are allowed some threshold of deception (e.g. can outright lie but can't pretend to be your lawyer) but since 99% of people don't know this it really undermines the purpose.
Like if the police can lie, but tell you that you get an attorney, how is a client supposed to know that your lawyer can't lie to you too?