I know what the 5th amendment says

[Pototan]

but if I'm a juror and it's one person's word against another's, isn't it natural to give more weight to the person who swears, under oath and under the penalty of perjury, than to the person who refuses to testify?

[DemocraticPatriot]

1. Yes.

[LeftInTX]

2. People who testify are subject to conflicting statements and holes in their testimony.

Their testimony is highly scrutinized by juries. Lots of people who don't testify are found not guilty

[stopdiggin]

3. Not really. If I'm on the jury

I think I'm duty bound to respect the 5th - and the right to invoke it. And I'm going to argue in deliberations, rather strenuously in fact, that the exercise thereof does not impugn or impute - in any way shape or form.

(so it kind of looks like you and I would be locked in for some dispute .. )

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

[Irish_Dem]

4. If Stormy is telling lies, why won't Trump fight back under oath?

Looks suspicious.

[Pototan]

6. My point

[onenote]

14. Because its his right not to and because the defense strategy is to make the jury think Stormy is an extortionist.

There are more potential downsides to the defense from Trump testifying than upsides.

[Irish_Dem]

15. I am not talking about his rights.

I am asking why a man doesn't stand up to defend himself from what he says are lies?

It is just common sense that people defend themselves from lies.

[onenote]

17. Because there can be downsides to putting oneself on the stand.

There are studies that suggest defendants who take the stand to call other witnesses liars don't tend to sway jurors very much.

It's just common sense that defendants do what they can to avoid conviction and not testifying often is the best way to do that.

[JT45242]

5. They will be given specific instructions by judge...

In the US, in criminal trial, juries are told that you cannot draw an inference because the defendant did not testify.

In a civil trial, they can weigh that into what they think.

In most, if not all, countries that have legal systems based on British colonial status, the jury can draw conclusions from the lack of testimony.

Let's hope the jury follows the instructions and still convicts the orange turd.

[Irish_Dem]

7. Human nature is human nature.

It looks suspicious if Trump does not take the stand to refute Stormy.

[Pototan]

8. It seems that you and I agree quite often

Thia one included.

[Irish_Dem]

9. At least half of everything is psychology.

The judge can lecture the jury as much as he wants about the law.

But these are adults and the facts are clear.
Stormy was a very credible witness.
And Trump won't stand up for himself and testify under oath.

The jury can add 2+2 and get 4.

[Pototan]

10. It's kinda like when the judge tells jurors

to disregard "the previous statement and strike if from the record".

You can't un-ring the bell and you can't change human nature.

[former9thward]

22. Trump can't just testify on one issue.

Once he is on the stand there is the potential for all the issues in the trial to come up -- not just sex with Daniels. Sex with Daniels is not illegal, nor is paying her off. That is not what the trial is about.

[elocs]

11. From the headline it was obvious that a "but" was coming. n/t

[sarisataka]

12. You know what the 5th Amendment says

unfortunately, you do not seem to understand it.

[Pototan]

13. Oh, I understand the 5th Amendment

but I also understand human nature.

Could the prosecution play this clip at trial?

[onenote]

16. No.And yet prosecutors fail to obtain convictions of defendants who don't testify and convict those that do testify.

The judge would never allow the prosecution to present that clip or even quote it and if he did, he would be guaranteeing any conviction would be reversed. I'm sort of shocked you'd even ask that question.

There are many variables at play and a simplistic view of human nature doesn't take them into account. For example, there is some evidence that a defendant who takes the stand and simply denies the allegations doesn't improve their chances with the jury. Moreover, if the jurors don't like the way a witness comes across, it can hurt that witness, so not testifying often is the right move.

Have you ever sat on the jury in a criminal case?

[Pototan]

18. Yes

A drug case. The defendant testified and we acquitted.

The police testified and all set one timeline. The defendant took the stand and admitted to addiction but not selling, which was his charge. Physical evidence proved he was telling the truth, and the 3 officers were lying. If he didn't take the stand, we could not have settled the conflict between them. The police timeline would have been unrefuted. I know the defense attorney could have brought up the discrepancy, but as it turned out, only the defendant did. I associated the physical evidence that corroborated the defendant's testimony and proved the officers of lying in the deliberation.

[onenote]

20. If the physical evidence proved he was telling the truth, why was his testimony significant.

Are you saying you would have ignored the physical evidence if he hadn't testified?

[Pototan]

21. Well, I'll go into detail.

The defendant purchased drugs at a dealer's apartment. The 3 officers all said that it occurred at around 7:00 PM. There was an undercover female officer inside also purchasing at the same time while 2 officers waited outside. She said that the defendant gave her the drugs, when in fact the dealer just gave them to him to pass to her in the apartment because the dealer didn't want to get up from his chair (defendant's testimony).

In another event on a different date the police set the timeline that the defendant was at the dealer's apartment at around 7:00 PM and left at 7:30. The defendant said he was there at that time on that date to buy drugs but left about 8:30. The police followed his vehicle for a short distance, then had a trooper stop him on the highway, giving him a warning to establish his identity. They did not arrest him then.

In deliberation, the vote was close, like 7 to 5 to acquit. I said that I believed the defendant was an addict, but not a dealer. I think they're trying to use him to roll on the dealer he bought the drugs from. It was one word against the others. I then asked for the physical evidence, being the warning ticket. The Forman was for a guilty verdict. I told him, "let's look at the warning ticket. We all know the distance from the apartment to the stop. We all know that's about 20 minutes. If the ticket says around 8:00, I'll change to guilty, because that will prove the defendant is a liar, if you agree that if it says 9:00, you'll change to not guilty because that will prove that all 3 officers rehearsed their testimony about the apartment and their lying." This will establish credibility. Neither of us knew the time on the ticket beforehand, and the prosecution didn't think to check to get their stories straight.

9:00 it was and we acquitted.

[sarisataka]

19. You may think you do

But that clip and a juror allowing a person choosing to not testify influence them towards guilt is the antithesis of the Fifth Amendment.

[NanaCat]

23. That would be you

But it's not how everyone sees it. If I were ever indicted for something I didn't do, I still wouldn't get on the stand, because you don't give the government a chance to use your own words against you--and they will. Speaking about one small detail that you forgot or even misremembered can get you in over your head before you know what hit you.

It's downright stupid to help them make their case by giving the government a shot at you on a witness stand. Every good lawyer will tell you that your best defense is to shut up and let your attorney do the talking for you, from the police interrogation room to the court system. They might still convict you, but at least you weren't so stupid as to give them any rope to hang you.

Really.