User:EcheverriaSellars295
In every criminal trial, the defendant faces an essential strategic decision: to testify or not to testify. Those outside the criminal justice system tend to view this decision simply, believing that the innocent will require the stand and tell their side with the story while those with something to hide will not. Experienced criminal lawyers know that the decision is much more complex and rarely has anything to do with guilt or innocence.
Testifying is fraught with peril for any defendant. Guilty or simple, if the defendant takes the stand, the case will likely turn on his performance as a witness. With so much at stake, the pressure on your defendant is enormous. One false step and he could lose his case. During cross-examination, a skilled prosecutor will make an effort to confuse him and twist his words to produce it appear that he or she is lying. If he's a bad public speaker or gets nervous and says the wrong thing, he may appear guilty even though he's not. If the jury is turned off by his tone and demeanor, or simply doesn't like him for inexplicable reasons, the defense may hardly ever recover.
Apart from this impression the defendant tends to make during his testimony, the mere act of testifying may have the unintended effect of lowering the responsibility of proof. In some sort of criminal case, a conviction requires proof beyond a practical doubt, the highest standard of proof in our legal system. When the only evidence presented comes in the prosecutor, the jury targets on whether the prosecutor provides met that high burden of proof. Once your defendant testifies, however, jurors tend to focus solely on that they believe, the opposition or the alleged sufferer. Rather than weighing the prosecutor's case against the extraordinarily high standard of proof beyond a good doubt, the jurors tend to weigh the defendant's story against the prosecutor's or the victim's story. This effectively lowers the typical of proof to something approaching a preponderance standard (more likely than not) and dramatically reduces the chances the defendant will win the outcome.
Finally, in some cases, there is truth to your widely held belief that the defendant who chooses to never testify is hiding an issue. Court rules normally limit the research admitted at trial to that which bears directly relating to the alleged crime. Evidence of uncharged misconduct and prior criminal convictions is usually excluded for fear that jurors who are exposed to such evidence will convict the defendant since they believe him to be a bad person rather than because they are presented proof that he actually committed the loaded crime. If a defendant testifies, however, he may open the door for the use of such evidence by your prosecution. Knowing that evidence of prior bad acts may prejudice the jury against him, the defendant may decide not to testify so that it will avoid any risk associated with exposing the jury to such damaging evidence.
Because of all the risks involved when some sort of defendant testifies, many criminal defense attorneys advise their clients, regardless of perceived guilt or innocence, not to testify unless absolutely vital. This advice frustrates the countless defendants who desperately wish to proclaim their innocence to your jury. Most criminal defense attorneys have learned the hard way, nevertheless, that it is typically much safer to attack the prosecutor's case than to put on one of your family.
