Uživatel:SunshineHurtado905

In every criminal trial, the defendant faces an essential strategic decision: to testify or not to testify. Those outside the criminal justice system tend to view this decision in simple terms, believing that the innocent will take the stand and tell their side with the story while those with something to cover will not. Experienced criminal lawyers know that the decision is much more complex and rarely has anything about guilt or innocence.

Testifying is fraught with peril for almost any defendant. Guilty or simple, 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. One false step and your dog could lose his case. During cross-examination, a skilled prosecutor will make an effort to confuse him and twist his words to make it appear that he or she is lying. If he's a negative public speaker or gets nervous and says the incorrect thing, he may appear guilty although he's not. If the jury is turned off by his tone and demeanor, or simply doesn't like him for inexplicable motives, the defense may hardly ever recover.

Apart from the impression the defendant tends to make during his testimony, the mere act of testifying often have the unintended effect of lowering the responsibility of proof. In some sort of criminal case, a conviction requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt, the highest standard of proof within our legal system. When the only evidence presented comes in the prosecutor, the jury focuses on whether the prosecutor provides 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 with extraordinarily high standard of proof beyond a decent 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 instances, there is truth to the widely held belief that the defendant who chooses to never testify is hiding some thing. Court rules normally limit the research admitted at trial to that which bears directly over the alleged crime. Evidence of uncharged misconduct and prior criminal convictions is usually excluded for fear that jurors who face such evidence will convict the defendant even though they believe him being a bad person rather than because they are presented proof that he actually committed the charged crime. If a opposition testifies, however, he may open the door for the use of such evidence by this prosecution. Knowing that proof prior bad acts may prejudice the jury against him, the defendant may elect not to testify so as to avoid any risk with exposing the jury to help such damaging evidence.

Because of all the 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 wish to proclaim their innocence to the jury. Most criminal defense attorneys have learned the hard way, however, that it is typically much safer to strike the prosecutor's case than to put on one of your own.	

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