OJ refused to testify in his own defense, instead making an unsworn statement from the dock. Of course, had the defense called him, he would of been destroyed in cross examination, as he had changed his story multiple times, and would end up with no alabi for the time of the murders.
So why didn’t the prosecution call OJ then?
The fifth amendment. A defendant cannot be compelled to serve as a witness against himself. IANAL, but I believe the only way the prosecution is allowed to question a defendant on the stand is if the defense has first put him on the stand to serve as a witness in his own defense.
Because you cannot be compelled to testify against yourself. Nor can you be compelled to testify against your spouse.
The fifth amendment.
The state cannot compel a defendant to testify.
I think that’s probably because of the fifth amendment… I don’t think the prosecution can call the defendant as a witness, and even if they did he would have been able to refuse to answer any questions.
ETA: And… possibly we’ll hit the fifth simul-post? 
The prosecution cannot call the defendant as a witness, due to the Fifth Amendment. If the defense calls the defendant as a witness, the prosecution can then cross-examine him. As you can imagine, this makes calling the defendant a very risky strategy. There is a ha-ha only serious joke that 10% of the defense attorney’s fee is for the defense, 90% for making the decision whether or not to put the defendant on the stand.
Well then that proves his guilt
?? No, it doesn’t.
so what’s the point of the 5th amendment
all it does is help criminals get away with it
is it time to re-examine it
In my state, NSW, Australia, but its a Westminster system the same…
sworn statements from the dock are now gone, and the choice is to be cross examined, OR not say anything at all.
This seems rather a basic violation of due human rights, because when you please not guilty, you ought to be able to give an explanation of it…
You might be worried that when you plead “not guilty” its said with a lot of stress, because its at the opening minutes of the trial.
The explanation of it might sound more truthful when its said as a full sentence at the end of a trial… But NSW is a police state, anything they say is true and right and just … any criticism must be a lie.
Here is the text of the Fifth Amendment: No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.
Maybe, but remember that (in the US system of law, at any rate), it’s ENTIRELY the prosecutor’s job to prove guilt. If a defendant can be compelled to testify against himself, wouldn’t every criminal case basically boil down to:
Step 1: Call defendant to testify.
Step 2: “Did you do it?”
Think about it-without the Fifth Amendment, anytime you defended yourself on the stand, but the courts chose not to believe you and declared you to be guilty, a charge of perjury could be added every time.
edited to add: and if this were to happen, you can bet the penalty for perjury would would skyrocket.
In the US the defendant does not need to state his side of the story, or to give alibis or excuses. It is the job of the prosecution to prove the have enough evidence to convict, and the job of the defendant’s legal representative to show that the prosecution does not. At no point does the accused need to specifically state under oath that they are innocent.
The primary objective of the fifth amendment is to protect innocent people from being compelled to make themselves look guilty. It achieves this objective quite well. Helping the guilty get away with their crime from time to time is an unfortunate-but-necessary side effect.
If you didn’t commit the murder for which you are a defendant, but you don’t have a good alibi (i.e. no one else can truthfully testify that you were with them far from the crime scene at the time of the murder), and you hated the defendant because he was having an affair with your wife (i.e. you had motive to kill him), you’re probably better off not testifying. Your attorney, if he’s worth his pay, will not put you on the stand - and because of the fifth amendment, the prosecution can’t then put you on the stand and make you tell the jury that you hated the victim.
We’re not talking about Australia.
And at least in most places in the US, you don’t enter your plea at the trial, but at arraignment or a preliminary hearing.
No.
“Better a hundred guilty go free than one innocent suffer.”
Why? It’s not your job to prove that you’re not guilty. In the English adversarial system, the burden of proof for criminal conviction is entirely on the prosecution.
Accused people “getting away with it” is not a common problem, OJ notwithstanding.
Check out the conviction rates in your favorite jurisdiction.
Anything that increased the conviction rates of innocent people would be a terrible idea.
In Australia, making an unsworn statement from the dock is no longer legal to stop people abusing the 5th like OJ did.