I’m curious. I started this thread.
and it has been suggested that some jurors would be inclined to find somebody guilty if they testify on their own behalf due to the burden of guilt. Personally, my own bias (before anything was said) was that a defendant testifying would be more likely to be innocent.
So, imagine you are a juror. The defendant chooses to testify, based on this and this alone, do you think the defendant is more likely to be innocent or guilty?
I’m highly unlikely to be selected for a jury. I’m Facebook friends with the local DA and most of his staff, as well as many of the local lawyers, plus I do criminal defense work. Last time I got called, I had a scheduling conflict, and faxed a copy of the the Order Setting my case to the clerk’s office to get excused.
That said, I would not have any bias due to the mere fact of a defendant testifying or not testifying. I might have a raised eyebrow for his lawyer if there was no good reason for the testimony–you pretty much have to put the defendant on if you’re claiming self defense or a few other very limited situations, but otherwise, unless the client insists, I’d usually advise against it.
I don’t think it means anything if the defendant testifies or not. If they go on the stand, I’ll judge their testimony; if they don’t, I’ll look to other evidence.
Yeah, believing that the mere act of testimony is indicative of guilt or innocence is just nonsense. It’s like saying people with wide-set eyes are more trustworthy, or that a dude with a bumpy cranium is probably a killer. One thing simply has no causal relationship to the other.
The fact that a defendant is willing to testify doesn’t suggest that they are innocent or guilty.
What they say and how they say it should have more of an influence than simply being willing to testify.
I recall some famous lawyer – John Grisham? – stating that he felt a defendant not testifying was generally considered a sign of guilt. Anyone else ever read this? That would not necessarily mean, of course, that his testifying was a sign of innocence.
It is impossible to answer this question sensibly in the abstract. The impact of a defendant testifying or declining to is going to depend on the context of the other features of the case, and, if they do testify, on both the content and style of what they say.
Your poll has no appropriate option. The problem with the question has nothing to do with whether or not I am subject to bias.
Am a lawyer. No way would it have been relevant to me.
I’ve been on two juries and in both cases the defendant did not testify. Did not make me think they were innocent or guilty.
I have no idea whether a defendant normally testifies, or whether there’s any connection between testifying or not, and innocence or guilt. There’s no *meaning *attached in my mind to the action of a defendant testifying, or its absence.
Personally, it is my opinion that if a suspect goes to trial (instead of accepting a plea bargain), he must be very very innocent, very very stupid, or very very rich. As a juror, I’d be inclined to finding an answer to those three alternatives, which I don’t think would take very long. All the above taking higher priority than whether or not he testifies in his own defense.
It’s a pretty fundamental assumption of the justice system that people generally will consider it to be a sign that the defendant’s hiding something. We instruct our juries specifically that they aren’t allowed to treat it that way out of concern that otherwise, that’s exactly what they’re going to do.
Logically, I know that I’m not supposed to hold it against a defendant if he/she doesn’t testify. And I could force myself to follow that rule.
But irrationally, I think I WOULD hold it against the defendant, even though I can think of numerous good reasons some defendants SHOULDN’T take the stand.
Plenty of innocent people are advised not to testify in case it harms their defence. Similarly, plenty of guilty people are advised not to testify in case it harms their defence. Conversely, many innocent people may wish to take the stand as they believe it is their best chance of convincing judge and jury of their version of events. Likewise with the guilty. So I voted for the third option, in this case. I believe I would not let this factor affect my decision.
My post from the prior thread:
[QUOTE=kayaker]
A defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Period. Why, given that you begin from a position of assumed innocence would someone testify? There’s no place to go but down!
ETA: IANAL, duh.
[/QUOTE]