That FACT that 99% of criminal defendants that stand trial don't testify, makes you claim stupid on its face.....
The Coming George Zimmerman Verdict And The Radically Changed American Justice System
- Thread starter philly rabbit
- Start date
That FACT that 99% of criminal defendants that stand trial don't testify, makes you claim stupid on its face.....
You really don't know ?....
cawacko
Well-known member
Why would he do that? Again, I have no vested interest in this case. I have not participated in the many threads and thousands of posts on this topic. There are many many cases where a defendant doesn't testify. And from what little I understand about this case the videos of Zimmerman talking to police were shown so he got to tell his story without have to be cross-examined.
I understand if you want to see him found guilty you would love for him to be on the stand and perjure himself. Why would you risk that as a defense attorney if you don't need to?
christiefan915
Catalyst
And the reason for that is...?
christiefan915
Catalyst
I already gave an opinion. Because they're afraid the client would inadvertently convict himself with his testimony.
cite
If they are telling the truth, you stick with your story, I imagine it can be very powerful to a jury.
cawacko
Well-known member
If you think you've already won why would you risk it? Again, I'm talking bigger picture than just this trial.
christiefan915
Catalyst
I'm not sure why you think he'd perjure himself on the stand. If the lawyer is 100% sure his client is innocent, wouldn't the client's testimony help? If the lawyer thinks his client is being portrayed unfairly should the client have a chance to defend himself in his own words? I really don't know. It just seems, rightly or wrongly, that the client has something to hide by not testifying on his own behalf.
Showing your client has nothing to hide, jurists may think, why is he afraid to testify? I do, anyway, like you said, lawyers may have another angle.
cawacko
Well-known member
In a court of law you are not trying to prove your clients innocence you are trying to show the prosecutor hasn't proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt.
I did a quick google search and it looks like there are lots of studies on why so many defendants don't testify. I found this one paragraph here.
Courts and scholars typically treat this silencing as a victory for defendants. In
our adversarial system, the right to remain silent and its Siamese twin, the right to have
counsel speak on one’s behalf, generate much of the defendant’s ability to undermine and
challenge the government’s case, primarily because the government has the burden of
proof and defendant speech is potentially incriminating. Silence is also one of the
primary protective devices that stands between defendants and an increasingly
unsympathetic criminal justice system in which high conviction rates and heavy
punishments make defendant speech risky and expensive.
http://faculty.lls.edu/workshops/documents/natapoff.pdf
christiefan915
Catalyst
SmarterthanYou
rebel
of course you would THINK that, you hate rights. The OTHER possibility is as I said. why let a prosecutor dig around your brain pan when his case wasn't made to begin with. remember, we are not a 'guilty until proven innocent' society yet, it's 'innocent until proven guilty'. maybe you should watch the youtube videos about why you should never talk to police.
cawacko
Well-known member
Well sure it could be. Like I said why take that risk if you think you have won already?
And for the "if you just tell the truth you have nothing to fear" well if you are innocent but have made many statements and some hotshot lawyer is able to get you to say something different than before, even on something benign, it can throw your whole case. Again, why risk that?
Which is why Zimmy and his family shouldn't have gone blabbing all over the place the past year and a half.
I'm willing to bet Treyvon had a higher IQ than Zimmy.
I repeat, its a free country....you can do whatever you find is necessary and prudent to do.....that is your right and your choice.
And if YOU ever to decide that in person.....choose carefully.
Last edited:
Cheery pick much ?
How about, " the right to remain silent and its Siamese twin, the right to have
counsel speak on one’s behalf "
We do have rights you know.
Choosing not to testify is a form of excercising your 5th Amendment right.....(according to Jarod) and something I was critized for not long ago on this forum
for asking questions about it....
so it seems you think a witness that chooses to exercise their 5th Amend. right is guilty of something....????
even if your not a witness but the defendent.
If I was innocent I would want to convince the jury.
cawacko
Well-known member
Also found this on why people don't testify:
Why would an innocent defendant choose not to testify?
The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives every criminal defendant the right to remain silent. This means that a criminal defendant has no obligation to testify or to call witnesses. When a defendant remains silent, judges instruct jurors that the defendant has exercised a constitutional right and that they cannot infer guilt from the defendant's silence. (To read the 5th Amendment, and other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, check out Nolo's list of The Most Important Cases, Speeches, Laws, and Documents, in American History.)
But there are some excellent reasons why even innocent defendants might remain silent at trial:
•If the defendant has previously been convicted of a felony, the prosecutor may be able to attack the defendant's credibility as a witness by offering evidence of the conviction. Jurors may infer from a defendant's previous conviction that the defendant has committed the charged crime, though a judge instructs them not to. By choosing not to testify, a defendant can prevent jurors from finding out about previous convictions.
•A defendant may have a poor demeanor when speaking in public. A judge or jury may not believe a defendant who, though telling the truth, is a nervous witness and makes a bad impression.
•By presenting a defense case, defendants run the risk that jurors will find them guilty simply because they are not convinced that the defendant’s evidence is accurate. Yet in reality, it is the prosecution that has the burden of convincing jurors of the defendant’s guilt.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/criminal-procedure-faq-29146-6.html
Why would an innocent defendant choose not to testify?
The 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution gives every criminal defendant the right to remain silent. This means that a criminal defendant has no obligation to testify or to call witnesses. When a defendant remains silent, judges instruct jurors that the defendant has exercised a constitutional right and that they cannot infer guilt from the defendant's silence. (To read the 5th Amendment, and other Amendments in the Bill of Rights, check out Nolo's list of The Most Important Cases, Speeches, Laws, and Documents, in American History.)
But there are some excellent reasons why even innocent defendants might remain silent at trial:
•If the defendant has previously been convicted of a felony, the prosecutor may be able to attack the defendant's credibility as a witness by offering evidence of the conviction. Jurors may infer from a defendant's previous conviction that the defendant has committed the charged crime, though a judge instructs them not to. By choosing not to testify, a defendant can prevent jurors from finding out about previous convictions.
•A defendant may have a poor demeanor when speaking in public. A judge or jury may not believe a defendant who, though telling the truth, is a nervous witness and makes a bad impression.
•By presenting a defense case, defendants run the risk that jurors will find them guilty simply because they are not convinced that the defendant’s evidence is accurate. Yet in reality, it is the prosecution that has the burden of convincing jurors of the defendant’s guilt.
http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/criminal-procedure-faq-29146-6.html