The fact that she's allowed to raise a child is beyond disturbing - her kid's going to grow up hating police. And as we've seen, THAT usually never ends well.
Hey brilliant legal minds at DU - if your kid takes a bullet one day as the direct result of being brainwashed by you, can he or she sue you, assuming he or she survives?
Repugnant human being.
Well now, the advice she gave was actually pretty reasonable from a defense counsel's point of view. I saw cops lie on the stand when I was prosecuting, there was one cop in particular whose tickets I wouldn't take to a contested trial because I had no confidence in his truthfulness.
It does happen, and though a vast majority of the cops are just trying to do the right thing by the book and tell the truth as they see it, there is still a huge number of cops in the US and so there are a lot of bad ones too. Since they are all, good or bad, quite accustomed to the courtroom environment and testifying on the stand, if they are inclined to lie (And protecting their record and the validity of their arrest is a motive for that, the same as avoiding conviction and penalty is for the defendant), it is unlikely that anyone in the courtroom will catch them at it. So, actually, the judge or jury taking the cop's word over any other single person's is really is a problem in court, just as much as the other way 'round when you try a case in a jurisdiction where the jury pool likely contains a lot of people with a dim view of the police.
In most states, there's no right to a jury trial unless the maximum penalty is over six months in jail, so when you're talking about traffic offenses below DUI or hit-and-run,
voir dire and jury temperament are out the window, it all comes down to the judge or magistrate that has heard the same cops again and again, and who may themselves have an interest in maximizing the fines and penalties, and so the cop's testimony tends to carry a lot more weight than is theoretically warranted.
