הצגת מקור

In every criminal trial, the defendant faces an important strategic decision: to testify or to never testify. Those outside the criminal justice system usually tend to view this decision simply, believing that the innocent will require the stand and tell their side with the story while those with something to cover will not. Experienced criminal lawyers know the decision is much more complex and rarely has anything to do with guilt or innocence.

Testifying is fraught with peril for almost any defendant. Guilty or simple, if the defendant will take the stand, the case will likely turn on his performance for a witness. With so much at stake, the pressure on this defendant is enormous. An individual false step and he could lose his case. During cross-examination, a skilled prosecutor will make an attempt to confuse him and twist his words to make it appear that he is lying. If he's an undesirable public speaker or obtains nervous and says the incorrect thing, he may appear guilty although he's not. If the jury is put off by his tone or even demeanor, or simply doesn't enjoy him for inexplicable motives, the defense may never recover.

Apart from your impression the defendant would make during his testimony, the mere act of testifying can have the unintended effect of lowering the burden of proof. In a criminal case, a conviction requires proof beyond a good doubt, the highest standard of proof in our legal system. When the only evidence presented comes from the prosecutor, the jury targets whether the prosecutor comes with met that high pressure of proof. Once this defendant testifies, however, jurors tend to focus solely on that they believe, the defendant or the alleged sorry victim. Rather than weighing the prosecutor's case against the extraordinarily high standard of proof beyond a practical doubt, the jurors usually tend to weigh the defendant's story with prosecutor's or the victim's story. This effectively lowers the typical of proof to some thing approaching a preponderance standard (more likely than not) and dramatically reduces the chances the defendant will win the outcome.

Finally, in some cases, there is truth to the widely held belief that a defendant who chooses not to testify is hiding something. Court rules normally limit the research admitted at trial compared to that which bears directly in the alleged crime. Evidence of uncharged misconduct and prior criminal convictions is normally excluded for fear that jurors who are exposed to such evidence will convict the defendant even though they believe him to become a bad person rather than because they have been presented proof that he or she actually committed the billed crime. If a opposition testifies, however, he may open the door for the utilization of such evidence by this prosecution. Knowing that proof prior bad acts may well prejudice the jury next to him, the defendant may elect not to testify so as to avoid any risk involving exposing the jury to help such damaging evidence.

Because skin color risks involved when a defendant testifies, many felony defense attorneys advise their own clients, regardless of identified guilt or innocence, to never testify unless absolutely necessary. This advice frustrates the countless defendants who desperately want to proclaim their innocence to the jury. Most criminal defense attorneys have learned the hard way, nevertheless, that it is usually much safer to attack the prosecutor's case than to position on one of your family.	

[http://immigrationlawyersinseattle.net/ seattle immigration lawyer]