I’m assuming then that a lot of people who DO take the stand are in the same circumstances as Arias… The facts point to guilt; there is no dispute as to the facts. What the defendant has to do is convince the jury of extenuating circumstances as to why what they did should not be considered a crime - should be self-defence, or was assault not murder, Bob was carrying the gun not me, etc. In that case, the defendant needs to explain himself or herself.
If the issue is a question of alibi, the defendant wasn’t there, then hopefully the evidence the person was there is as doubtful as the evidence they were not there. It’s probably better in that case to poke hole without the defendant testifying; their testimony doesn’t add any direct facts to the case.
The cops investigating find that she and her husband, who’s kind of a jerk, have been fighting like cats and dogs for years. All the neighbors have heard them screaming at each other dozens of times.
The husband stands to inherit a lot of money.
So, there’s plenty of motive. But there’s no forensic evidence at all against the husband, who seems to have a fairly solid (but not wholly unbreakable) alibi. The D.A. charges the husband with murder… but knows he really doesn’t have much of a case.
In THAT case, if I were a defense attorney, I would strongly advise the husband NOT to testify. The best thing is for me to show the jury that the prosecutors have absolutely NO evidence. If I do that, my client will go free.
IF he testifies, he opens himself for attack. He may HAVE to justify every harsh word he ever said about his wife. He risks looking very bad on the stand, and making himself look guilty.
And this is precisely why the system does not force defendants to testify - the prosecution needs facts, they can’t just go on a fishing expedition - let’s force the husband to answer and tell his story. (unless they control a grand jury).
Roswell Gilbert was convicted of murder for the mercy killing of his wife because he took the stand and was too good at testifying. He was an engineer and had testified numerous times as an expert witness. So testifying as matter-of-factly on cross-examination came across as cold and calculating - exactly the person who commits first degree murder.
