ShoafGregory838
Aus Salespoint
In every criminal test, 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 take the stand and tell their side of the story while those with something to cover will not. Experienced criminal lawyers know the decision is far more complex and rarely has anything to do with guilt or innocence.
Testifying is fraught with peril for almost any defendant. Guilty or simple, if the defendant will take the stand, the case will likely turn on his performance for a witness. With so much at stake, the pressure on this defendant is enormous. An individual false step and he could lose his case. During cross-examination, a skilled prosecutor will attempt to confuse him and twist his words to produce it appear that he is lying. If he's a bad public speaker or obtains nervous and says the incorrect thing, he may appear guilty although he's not. If the jury is put off by his tone and demeanor, or simply doesn't enjoy him for inexplicable motives, the defense may for no reason recover.
Apart from the impression the defendant helps make during his testimony, the mere act of testifying can have the unintended effect of lowering the responsibility of proof. In some sort of criminal case, a conviction requires proof beyond a good doubt, the highest standard of proof in our legal system. When the only evidence presented comes from the prosecutor, the jury targets on whether the prosecutor comes with met that high problem of proof. Once that defendant testifies, however, jurors usually tend to focus solely on who they believe, the defendant or the alleged victim. Rather than weighing the prosecutor's case with extraordinarily high standard of proof beyond a decent doubt, the jurors tend to weigh the defendant's story with prosecutor's or the victim's story. This effectively lowers the standard of proof to something approaching a preponderance standard (very likely than not) and dramatically reduces the chances the defendant will win the situation.
Finally, in some circumstances, there is truth on the widely held belief that the defendant who chooses to never testify is hiding some thing. Court rules normally limit the evidence admitted at trial compared to that which bears directly in the alleged crime. Evidence of uncharged misconduct and prior criminal convictions is normally excluded for fear that jurors who face such evidence will convict the defendant since they believe him to become a bad person rather than because they have been presented proof that he or she actually committed the billed crime. If a opposition testifies, however, he may open the door for the use of such evidence by that prosecution. Knowing that proof prior bad acts may well prejudice the jury with him, the defendant may elect not to testify so that it will avoid any risk involving exposing the jury to such damaging evidence.
Because of all the risks involved when a defendant testifies, many felony defense attorneys advise their clients, regardless of perceived guilt or innocence, to never testify unless absolutely required. This advice frustrates a variety of defendants who desperately wish to proclaim their innocence to the jury. Most criminal defense attorneys have discovered the hard way, however, that it is constantly much safer to strike the prosecutor's case than to position on one of your own.
