I think it’s the same principle as this quote, often attributed to Cardinal Richelieu:
The point of my post was merely to illustrate one potential reason why an innocent defendant might feel motivated to testify on his own behalf - but I agree fully that in many (most?) cases a competent defense lawyer will rightly advise his client not do so.
Moderator Warning
jtur88, political and professional jabs are not permitted in General Questions. You have recently been cautioned against making this sort of post. This is an official warning. Do not do this again.
Colibri
General Questions Moderator
Without getting into professional jabs, jtur88 has a point - many people in the system are more motivated to score points (conviction rates) rather than “find the truth”. Once a person is fingered as the offender by the system, the wheels of justice will likely spend their effort trying to solidify the case rather than exploring alternatives.
To be fair, this is because the majority of people are guilty, or perhaps are guilty to a partial extent - which is why they end up in court. However, it’s also why an innocent person may be targeted - past history, demeanour, appearance, circumstances. Often they won’t be the most sympathetic person in the drama. Odds are the jury is not a “jury of his peers”, may not relate to, for example, an unemployed barely literate youth just “hangin’ out” on the street.
he other reason is that much of the time, there’s not a lot the defendant can add to the story. For example… Who bought the alcohol, who arranged the party, who handed out drinks? All a defendant can do in that circumstance is dig themselves in deeper, maybe make things worse (“why didn’t you try to stop this?”) It’s the prosecutor’s job to dig up that evidence. “Did you know that X and Y were underage and drinking?” Maybe he did, but he’s not breaking the law and it’s not his legal obligation to stop them unless he’s the legal guardian - but a jury might not see the legal distinction.
Because a skilled prosecutor can ***make ***an innocent person look guilty. There are so many ways an innocent person can trip over their words or fall for trap questions.
Those are very good reasons, but the best reason is really that there’s nothing in it for you. In our system, it’s not your job to explain why you aren’t guilty. It’s the state’s job to prove that you are.
I doubt that it would be a meaningful exercise. There are far too many variables and particular circumstances relevant to the result of any trial for this one variable to stand out.
Yeah, you can’t control for actual guilt. 
Like it or not, there are some people who think that refusing to testify on your behalf is evidence of guilt. Some people figure a person who hides behind his lawyer and won’t take the stand to deny the crime must be guilty. So there is a cost to not taking the stand.
So I think it’s a valid question as to which strategy works better: testifying and taking the risk of doing a poor job or not testifying and taking the risk of giving an impression of having something to hide.
The world’s most honest and conscientious people actually give a huge damn about being 100 percent truthful, especially when under oath. This does not make for a glib sales presentation that a skilled con man makes, but rather a halting, unsure and unpersuasive testimony. I haven’t dealt with this in criminal trials, but I’ve seen it countless times in civil cases. The most honest people make really shitty courtroom theater.
And let’s also remember that trials are not for most cases about getting to the truth, but about presenting one side or the other.
Yes, but it’s a naive, inexperienced, nervous, perhaps first-time-in-court innocent defendant vs. a seasoned, veteran prosecutor. It’s no match.
The prosecutor would easily make a testifying defendant look 10 times worse than the defendant would have if he/she did not testify.
I don’t think there would be a point in this.
Trials in which the defendents testified are not the same as trials in which they don’t. Specifically, as noted by others, lawyers are more likely to encourage their clients to take the stand if the evidence is otherwise against them. If the situation looks very good for the defense anyway, then they would be more inclined to strongly advise against it. So you’re basically left with speculation as to whether on the whole the defenses would have been better or worse off (on average) in the absence of the testimony.
Can you clarify, for purposes of the ongoing discussion, just what you object to about this post? Most specifically, whether it’s the substance or the tone?
For example, suppose in theory I - or md2000 - agree with the substance of the claim. Is there a way to say it without running afoul of the “political and professional jabs” policy.
Another aspect of this is the desire not to confirm even innocent facts that are nevertheless helpful to the prosecution.
Imagine I’m tried for the crime of stealing the Liberty Bell. In fact, while I was at Independence Mall alone on the day of the crime because I love the Liberty Bell and try to look at it every day, I was not the one who loaded onto a truck and drove away.
If I testify as to my version of the facts, I actually establish a lot of facts that the prosecution wants to establish. I was there. I have no alibi. I covet the Liberty Bell. Those facts all help them prove their case, allowing them to focus on proving a narrower range of issues.
That’s an extreme and simplified example, but that sort of phenomenon happens all the time in large and small ways. It’s one of the good reasons not to talk to the police even if you are innocent.
Thanks Richard Parker (again I’m thankful for every answer but I don’t want to spam the board). That was something I hadn’t considered and I was really curious if there was more to it than that the innocent man might not present well so I can add this to my list.
So to sum up so far:
(1) A defendant, and perhaps especially an innocent one, may not present well,
(2) A person may have something they wish to conceal (another crime, something embarassing, etc),
(3) A prosecutor is an expert at making somebody appear guilty (related to 1 above),
(4 It shifts the focus from the prosecution having to prove the case to the belief / non-belief of the defendant’s story; and,
(5) It may aid the prosecution by establishing facts for them.
With all this, I’m starting to wonder; is there ever a time when it would be ***good ***for an innocent defendant to testify?
It would be a rare an exceptional situation. That’s exactly why your lawyer’s going to assume that you should not testify.
I was kind of thinking the same thing.
I thought perhaps if they had something which absolutely proved their innocence, but if such a fact could be presented, you would think it would never have gone to trial. Why would a prosecutor bother?
As above, they would do it if the everything else is going against them and it’s a Hail Mary longshot worth taking, and/or if they might make a convincing or sympathetic impression.
Jodi Arias took the stand, and while it was unsuccessful, it was a worthwhile gamble, IMO. Everything else pointed to her guilt and her only shot was at making an impression with her poor-little-girl sob story of being abused and so on.
But without any numbers, all we’re seeing here is a belief that testifying is a bad idea. The only substantiation for the belief is some theories why it might be true.
I think most people on this board are smart enough to realize there can be a difference between the things that people believe are true and things that actually are true. You need objective evidence to separate the science from the folklore.
Bad/misleading numbers are worse than no numbers at all.
If you can’t get accurate/meaningful numbers, then you rely on people with experience and expertise. They could all be wrong, but that’s sometimes as good as you can get.