[iudqnolq]

I believe you're completely correct. The current system is amoral; we should change it.

But unfortunately you don't have a right under the constitution to the legal counsel of your choice, and interfering with your ability to pay the legal council you want isn't a federal crimes government agents could go to prison for.

(One of the many reasons why is that the Supreme Court decided a few decades ago that prosecutors have absolute immunity for anything they do on the job, even if they deliberately violated the law.)

[biomcgary]

Do you remember the decision that gave prosecutors immunity? I've been toying with ideas for laws concerning malicious prosecution and I'm curious about the basis of the Supreme Court's decision.

[iudqnolq]

This might help https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_immunity

Edit: If you're serious about this project you should read through Civil Rights Corp's cases.

You'll learn the most a clever, well-resourced team can push the existing rules in practice to hold governments accountable.

In my unexpert opinion a nonlayer can most efficiently get an impression of how an area of law sort of works by reading decisions from lower-court judges who dispense justice assembly-line style.

When you're reading a Supreme Court decision or a law it's incredibly easy to miss a procudure that makes any remedy inpractical.

For example, you might read through a whole process for deciding the merits of a complex argument a prisoner's civil rights were violated. But you'd be missing that prisoner's lawyers can only make an argument if that prisoner, without a lawyer, wrote the exact right words on a complaint form and handed it to a warden within (for example) two weeks of their rights being violated.

Get used to this search engine. And when you read about a case in the news, look it up. This (or a related resource) is usually how the reporter got their primary sources.

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/