ChongSpano954

In every criminal test, the defendant faces a critical strategic decision: to testify or not to 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 of the story while those with something to cover will not. Experienced criminal lawyers know that the decision is far more complex and rarely has anything about guilt or innocence.

Testifying is fraught with peril for almost any defendant. Guilty or innocent, if the defendant takes 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 your dog could lose his condition. During cross-examination, a skilled prosecutor will make an attempt to confuse him and twist his words to make it appear that he or she is lying. If he's an undesirable public speaker or obtains nervous and says the wrong thing, he may appear guilty even though he's not. If the jury is put off by his tone or demeanor, or simply doesn't such as him for inexplicable reasons, the defense may for no reason recover.

Apart from the impression the defendant helps make during his testimony, the mere act of testifying may have the unintended effect of lowering the burden of proof. In some sort of 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 in the prosecutor, the jury discusses whether the prosecutor offers met that high problem of proof. Once the defendant testifies, however, jurors tend to focus solely on which they believe, the defendant or the alleged sufferer. 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 against the prosecutor's or the victim's story. This effectively lowers the standard of proof to some thing approaching a preponderance standard (very likely than not) and dramatically reduces the chances the defendant will win the case.

Finally, in some cases, there is truth on the widely held belief that a defendant who chooses not to testify is hiding an issue. Court rules normally limit the research admitted at trial compared to that which bears directly relating to the alleged crime. Evidence of uncharged misconduct together with 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 are presented proof that your dog actually committed the charged crime. If a defendant testifies, however, he may open the door for the use of such evidence by this prosecution. Knowing that evidence of prior bad acts may well prejudice the jury next to him, the defendant may elect not to testify to be able to avoid any risk associated with exposing the jury to such damaging evidence.

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

immigration attorney seattle