P-MART wiki - User contributions [en]

User:TurpinWeiser88

2012-04-26T21:59:17Z

TurpinWeiser88: Created page with 'In every criminal trial, the defendant faces an important strategic decision: to testify or to never testify. Those outside the criminal justice system usually tend to view this …'

In every criminal trial, the defendant faces an important strategic decision: to testify or to never testify. Those outside the criminal justice system usually tend to view this decision in simple terms, believing that the innocent will require the stand and tell their side of the story while those with something to cover will not. Experienced criminal lawyers know that 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 innocent, if the defendant will take the stand, the case will likely turn on his performance as a witness. With so much on the line, the pressure on this defendant is enormous. One false step and your dog could lose his condition. During cross-examination, a skilled prosecutor will make an attempt to confuse him and twist his words to make it appear that he 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 put off by his tone and also demeanor, or simply doesn't enjoy him for inexplicable motives, the defense may never recover.

Apart from your impression the defendant tends to make during his testimony, the mere act of testifying can have the unintended effect of lowering the responsibility of proof. In a criminal case, a conviction requires proof beyond a decent doubt, the highest standard of proof in our legal system. When the only evidence presented comes from the prosecutor, the jury discusses whether the prosecutor comes with met that high problem of proof. Once this defendant testifies, however, jurors usually tend to focus solely on which they believe, the opposition or the alleged victim. Rather than weighing the prosecutor's case against the extraordinarily high standard of proof beyond a practical doubt, the jurors usually tend to weigh the defendant's story with prosecutor's or the victim's account. This effectively lowers the standard of proof to an issue approaching a preponderance standard (more likely than not) and dramatically reduces it is likely the defendant will win the case.

Finally, in some circumstances, there is truth on the widely held belief that a defendant who chooses to never testify is hiding some thing. Court rules normally limit the research admitted at trial compared to that which bears directly in the alleged crime. Evidence of uncharged misconduct together with prior criminal convictions is frequently excluded for fear that jurors who are exposed to such evidence will convict the defendant even though they believe him to be a bad person rather than because they have been presented proof that he actually committed the loaded crime. If a opposition testifies, however, he may open the door for the utilization of such evidence by this prosecution. Knowing that evidence of prior bad acts may prejudice the jury next to him, the defendant may decide not to testify so that it will avoid any risk involving exposing the jury to help such damaging evidence.

Because skin color risks involved when a defendant testifies, many felony defense attorneys advise their own clients, regardless of perceived guilt or innocence, to never testify unless absolutely vital. This advice frustrates the countless defendants who desperately wish to proclaim their innocence to the 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 own.

[http://immigrationlawyersinseattle.net/ immigration lawyer in seattle]

TurpinWeiser88

2012-04-26T21:59:05Z