"ONE of you is going down for [this crime], you decide who."

[GuessTheAltAccount]

According to the Notorious BIG biopic, this is essentially what a police officer told him. The officer narrowed down ownership of an illegal firearm to one of two suspects, but didn't know which of the two actually owned said illegal firearm, so he offered to let them decide between each other who would take the blame for it, and let the other walk free.

Are police officers even allowed doing this? I presume it on the one hand allows them to extract a confession that might more easily hold up in court than other evidence, especially if the other evidence doesn't more specifically point to either particular perpetrator. (I've never heard of a trial of two suspects where the judge and jury have to figure out which of the two is guilty.) On the other hand, it might encourage dishonesty, as it allows whichever of the suspects has less to lose to take the fall for whoever has more to lose, regardless of actual guilt or innocence.

[The V I C]

That's how the NYPD was back then, and how they probably are today. The rules are more a guidebook for them and less rigid standards.

[Eahland]

In theory, they should both be acquitted, because in neither case can the prosecution prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it wasn't the other guy's.

[Great Algerstonia]

I pick Kowani

[Page]

It's called lying. Which cops can do. Which is why you never, ever talk to the police. You say one word "lawyer." Then your lawyer comes and tells the police that you won't be answering any questions.

It is NEVER in your interest to talk to the police. Even if your lawyer thinks you're screwed and that you best option is a deal, you don't need to be talking until an agreement is already made.