Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
Editorials & Other Articles
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So when a person like Zimmerman refuses to take the stand in his own defense [View all]The Velveteen Ocelot
(130,585 posts)5. It's very rare for a defendant to take the stand
whether or not his lawyer knows (or believes) he's innocent. I don't care how pure your life has been; a skilled prosecutor can find every weak spot in your version of the events, and can make a choirboy look like Charles Manson. It is the height of folly in almost all cases for any defendant to testify, and all defense lawyers know that. I wouldn't let Jesus testify in his own defense, let alone George Zimmerman. Whatever risks they take that the jury might take a dim view of a failure to testify (regardless of the judge's instructions that they are not to consider it), the risk of being eaten for lunch on the witness stand is almost always far greater.
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
90 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
So when a person like Zimmerman refuses to take the stand in his own defense [View all]
Generic Other
Jul 2013
OP
so how many people facing these charges actually "take the stand" in their own defense? nt
msongs
Jul 2013
#1
the jury is specifically instructed not to interpret his refusal to testify as anything but
Gman
Jul 2013
#2
Nope, I have no evidence that people sometimes don't follow directions.
RedCappedBandit
Jul 2013
#89
THAT is what made you think OJ was guilty? Not the blood evidence, DNA, Bruno Maglis, sweating in
WinkyDink
Jul 2013
#73
I think this is the stuff of basic civics. I think this should be a disqualifier
TheKentuckian
Jul 2013
#88
He basically got to testify when they played the tapes of the interviews he made
MiniMe
Jul 2013
#17
I thought that mercilessly humiliating him was the defense strategy today
Generic Other
Jul 2013
#30
IIRC, Jury instructions often tell juries they are to draw no conclusions from such non-testimony
cthulu2016
Jul 2013
#29
YOU, apparently, would be a crappy juror. GOOD jurors consider evidence exactly as they are supposed
WinkyDink
Jul 2013
#74
Like anomiep says above, it's not a search for truth, it's a search for a conviction.
Iggo
Jul 2013
#70
Lots of people talk to the cops and then are subsequently told by their attorney...
Hippo_Tron
Jul 2013
#90
Jurors should vote to convict only if the evidence presented convinces them beyond
struggle4progress
Jul 2013
#61
Your opening question is all I needed to read to know YOU do not grasp American jurisprudence.
WinkyDink
Jul 2013
#71
No, if I was guilty I wouldn't take the stand & if I was not-guilty I would be even less inclined to
Raine
Jul 2013
#76
I have read that it is generally a bad idea to take the stand in your own trial.
alarimer
Jul 2013
#84