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 General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
8 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Yall legal eagles, explain like I'm 5 or 10. How come most of the time (Original Post) raccoon Feb 2014 OP
Here is one article exboyfil Feb 2014 #1
Is 'most of the time' an accurate description? Jenoch Feb 2014 #2
The defendant might be very nervous and appear guilty. LuvNewcastle Feb 2014 #3
My guess- TexasProgresive Feb 2014 #4
Is "most of the time" accurate? Anyway, why risk having the defendant tripped or tricked? It isn't WinkyDink Feb 2014 #5
the biggest reason dsc Feb 2014 #6
The most common reason is that the Defendant has prior convictions DefenseLawyer Feb 2014 #7
+1. n/t Laelth Feb 2014 #8

LuvNewcastle

(16,849 posts)
3. The defendant might be very nervous and appear guilty.
Sun Feb 16, 2014, 07:51 AM
Feb 2014

Maybe the defendant is an asshole and the attorney knows the jury won't like him. Maybe the defendant doesn't display the proper emotions about the case. I'd say it's usually a case of one or more of those things along with the fact that the defendant knows more about the crime than he wants the jury to hear, and he's afraid that in a good cross-examination, that information will come out.

TexasProgresive

(12,157 posts)
4. My guess-
Sun Feb 16, 2014, 08:09 AM
Feb 2014

Now matter how well you prepare the client there is now predicting how he/she will stand up to aggressive cross-examination by the prosecution. This has nothing to do with the defendant's innocence or guilt but how the jury perceives it.

I am not a lawyer but this is what I've heard.

 

WinkyDink

(51,311 posts)
5. Is "most of the time" accurate? Anyway, why risk having the defendant tripped or tricked? It isn't
Sun Feb 16, 2014, 08:12 AM
Feb 2014

the accused's burden to prove anything; it's the prosecution's.

dsc

(52,166 posts)
6. the biggest reason
Sun Feb 16, 2014, 09:03 AM
Feb 2014

is that many things that normally can't be entered into evidence (previous convictions, dishonesty in personal dealings etc) can be entered in to evidence to impeach your testimony.

 

DefenseLawyer

(11,101 posts)
7. The most common reason is that the Defendant has prior convictions
Sun Feb 16, 2014, 09:46 AM
Feb 2014

Evidence of the priors would in many cases become admissible if the Defendant takes the stand as a witness. Another reason has to do with your theory of the case. Because the state has the burden of proof, in many cases the defense is not "here's what really happened"; rather it is only that the state can't prove that the crime occurred as alleged, beyond a reasonable doubt. In such cases, you may not want the defendant to take the stand because it can take the focus away from your theme. Sometimes he or she is just a bad witness (nervous, rambling, unlikeable, etc.). In those situations, if there isn't a fact that you absolutely need from the Defendant, you might choose not to put him on.

Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Yall legal eagles, explai...