Criminal defense lawyers present defenses that poke holes in the prosecution’s theory. We do not need the defendant to take the stand. For instance, in a murder trial, the prosecution presents their star witness who testifies that she saw the defendant shoot the victim.
Full Answer
But even though a defendant can testify, that doesn’t mean that it’s a good idea. Criminal defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This means that the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty.
How can a criminal defense lawyer defend someone who they think is guilty? The answer is two-fold. First, there is a difference between "legal guilt" and "factual guilt." Second, lawyers have a legal responsibility to their clients that they must uphold.
His is not a “what happened” story, often the best time for defendants to testify, but a “whether it happened” or “whether the women consented” story. In most cases like this, with the multitude of witnesses against him, attorneys would prefer the jurors to fixate only on the credibility of the complainants.
It's one of the more thankless jobs in the legal arena. Criminal defense attorneys, who stand beside clients accused of everything from minor offenses to mass murder, must mount the most effective defense of their client possible no matter how heinous the crime.
A witness is a person who saw or heard the crime take place or may have important information about the crime or the defendant. Both the defense and the prosecutor can call witnesses to testify or tell what they know about the situation.
The defense's job is to represent the accused and present his or her side of the story. In a criminal case every defendant is presumed to be innocent until the prosecutor proves that he or she is guilty.
Yes. The defense may call a prosecution witness during their case-in-chief. Although unusual, there may be several important reasons for calling a prosecution witness on behalf of the defense.
This means that the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty. This is often accomplished by calling police officers and other witnesses to testify to the various elements of the crime. The defendant's testimony adds very little in terms of finding the defendant not guilty.
They are used in all branches of law but in defence cases, a criminal solicitor analyses and prepares evidence, offers advice, creates and implements a defence strategy, and fights for an appropriate punishment for their client if relevant.
Whether dealing with criminal or civil cases, a Defense Attorney is an advocate for the accused, responsible for protecting their client's interests. When individuals or corporations are brought before a court as the defendant, they are at risk of having a judgment made against them.
What is reassuring for defendants is that whilst a signed statement from a complainant is enough for a charge, it is not necessarily enough to secure a conviction. The complainant must be able to convince the jury or magistrates that the defendant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt.
Don't tell anything unless they ask. Don't lie. Don't talk to other witnesses about the case. Don't learn your testimony by heart.
A person can be compelled (forced) to attend court and give evidence if they have been deemed competent to do so. The exceptions to this rule are the accused themselves, the accused's spouse or civil partner and those not deemed competent to give evidence.
One of the dangers of a defendant testifying in a criminal case is that once he testifies, he has waived his right to remain silent and will likely be ordered by the court to answer questions if he refuses to do so after taking the stand.
Right Against Self-Incrimination. Aside from the burden of evidence, defendants are entitled not to testify in their own defense to preserve their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.
Testifying yourself in your criminal case is often unnecessary because you are not required to prove your innocence. The prosecution bears the burden of presenting evidence that definitively proves that you are guilty of the charge against you.
Whether you should testify at your own trial is a decision that should only be made after consulting with an experienced criminal defense attorney because of the numerous and varied factors that typically must be considered when making that decision. The most common reason to put a defendant on the stand is simply that a jury wants to hear from the defendant. Despite the admonition from the judge that a defendant’s silence cannot be construed as guilt, some jurors will subconsciously see it that way. Another reason boils down to necessity. Sometimes, there is part of the defense strategy that simply cannot be explained by anyone but the defendant – though most defense attorneys will consider their client testifying as a method of last resort by which to get the information in front of the jury. By far, the number one reason most defense attorneys prefer to keep their clients off the stand is that once a client takes the stand and testifies, the prosecuting attorney gets an opportunity to cross-examine the defendant. The prosecutor does this every day and is likely very good at getting a witness to say something damaging or to exhibit strong emotions that are not flattering. An effective cross-examination can completely demolish any benefit that might have been gained by the defendant’s direct testimony. The other important reason to keep a client off the stand is to prevent perjury. A criminal defense attorney cannot knowingly suborn perjury. For example, if a client has outright admitted guilt to his/her attorney, the attorney cannot then put the client on the stand and allow him/her to claim innocence.
If you are the defendant in a criminal prosecution, you will undoubtedly have a number of questions and concerns about your case, If you have never before been accused of a crime, you are probably feeling lost and confused on top of being worried about the ultimate outcome of your case. One of the most important decisions you will need to make during your case is whether you wish to take your case to trial or resolve it by entering into a plea agreement with the State of Tennessee. If you do decide to move forward with a trial, a seemingly endless number of additional decisions will need to be made, including whether or not you will testify at your trial. As a criminal defense attorney will explain, deciding whether a defendant testifies or not is one of the most difficult of all strategic considerations because both the potential risks and potential benefits are high.
The defendant, however, cannot be forced to testify. The 5 th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants an accused the right against self-incrimination, stating as follows:
The job of a criminal defense lawyer is to defend you against the charges that are presented. When charges are brought, there only has to be "probable cause" that you might have committed the crime. At trial, the prosecuting lawyer's job is to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that you've committed the crime for which you're being charged.
The reason most criminal defense lawyers won't ask you if you're actually "guilty" is that it's not relevant to the case. Also, it's not their job to find out. Their job is to defend you, and put up a fair case. As one attorney put it, their job is to "keep the system honest.".
Another reason that lawyers can defend people regardless of guilt is that our society gives each citizen the right to be vigorously defended in a court of law. The U.S. Constitution assures every citizen due process and the right to legal counsel. Lawyers are bound to deliver this legal right to their clients.
According to Canon 7 in the ABA's Model Code of Responsibility, a defense lawyer's duty to his client is to "represent his client zealously within the bounds of the law" because of his inclusion in a profession whose goal is to " (assist) members of the public to secure and protect available legal rights and benefits."
First, there is a difference between "legal guilt" and "factual guilt.". Second, lawyers have a legal responsibility to their clients that they must uphold.
Putting the burden of proof upon the prosecution means the point of trial is all about either proving or failing to prove that you're guilty of the crime that's been charged - not knowing whether or not you're actually guilty.
For this reason, the most important thing when seeking criminal defense counsel is to find a lawyer who takes their legal responsibility seriously, and will do all they can to mount a thorough defense in your favor.
Testifying at a criminal trial? A person accused of a crime has a right to testify in his or her defense. While criminal defense attorneys must advise a client as to the risk of this decision, it remains that of the client’s to make during any criminal prosecution. While the burden of proof is always on the prosecution ...
Testimony, however, is evidence. The concern with presenting evidence in court is always of “opening doors.”. Opening a door is a term used often in criminal trials and it basically means creating an opportunity for the opposing side to present usually damaging evidence against the party who has introduced the evidence. ...
If a witness’s testimony is attacked, however, the opposing party is permitted to rehabilitate the witness with favorable testimony. Testifying in a criminal case sometimes comes with risk. The prosecution will bring out issues from a person’s past but it sometimes needs to be part of the strategy in a strong criminal defense.
In the case of an accused testifying in his or her defense, the most common concern is opening a door to prior criminal history or bad acts. It is important to understand, however, that the mere fact of that an accused testifies doesn’t mean that he or she has opened the door to character attacks. While testimony alone doesn’t expose a person ...
While the prosecution isn’t permitted to present prior convictions under Rule 404 (a) it can present prior convictions if those convictions will impeach the truthfulness of the accused person’s testimony.
While testimony alone doesn’t expose a person to character attacks the prosecution is permitted to impeach the accused person, or any witness under Rules 607, 608, and 609 of the Pennsylvania Rules of Evidence. While the prosecution isn’t permitted to present prior convictions under Rule 404 ...
I have written previous articles on areas to attack when a person testifies in court. Testimony, however, is evidence.
Upon termination of the attorney-client relationship, a lawyer has continuing duties with respect to confidentiality and conflicts. In general, the confidentially duty continues as though the representation continued, unless the information has become generally known. A lawyer may not represent another client in a substantially related in which that person's interests are materially adverse to the former client unless the former client gives informed consent, confirmed in writing. Rule 4-1.9.
Rule 4-4.1. A lawyer may not communicate with a witness the lawyer knows to be represented by counsel in connection with the matter to be discussed, absent consent of that counsel. Rule 4-4.2. Counsel may not imply the he is disinterested in talking with an unrepresented witness, and is obligated to make reasonable efforts to correct the misunderstanding if it appears that the witness misunderstands the lawyer's role. The lawyer should not give legal advice to an unrepresented witness, other than advice to secure counsel if it appears that the interests of the witness are likely in conflict with the client. Rule 4-4.4. Finally, lawyers are prohibited from using means that have no purpose other than to embarrass, delay or burden a person. Rule 4-4.4. While certainly not required by the Rules, prudence dictates tape or video recording all interviews with witness, not only for the purpose of preserving evidence but also, with respect to potentially hostile witness, to avoid potential allegations of witness tampering.
Why a Criminal Defendant Should Not Testify. A criminal trial is incredibly stressful, especially with so much on the line. Many people do not handle the stress well and can become agitated, irritable, or nervous. Even if they are not guilty, the jury might wrongfully interpret these as signs of guilt and use them to enter a guilty verdict.
This turns the case into a question of credibility, which can often end poorly for someone accused of a crime, who has motive to lie, and has little experience testifying at trial. This changes the dynamic of a criminal trial as they jury weighs the prosecution’s case against the defendant’s version of events, when in actuality the defendant has nothing to prove.
Criminal defendants are presumed innocent until proven guilty. This means that the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant is guilty. This is often accomplished by calling police officers and other witnesses to testify to the various elements of the crime. The defendant’s testimony adds very little in terms of finding the defendant not guilty.
Too many things can go wrong. When you testify at trial in a criminal case you open yourself up to having any prior bad acts introduced as evidence. These misdeeds, while unrelated to the crime a defendant is accused of committing, can be used by the jury to infer that the defendant committed the crime in question.
Even if they are not guilty, the jury might wrongfully interpret these as signs of guilt and use them to enter a guilty verdict. A criminal trial is incredibly stressful, especially with so much on the line. Many people do not handle the stress well and can become agitated, irritable, or nervous. Even if they are not guilty, ...
Instead, the best defense is often to discredit the prosecution’s case by calling into question the police investigation, the accuser’s motivation, and any inconsistencies to show that the prosecution has not proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
In a criminal trial the defendant has a constitutional right not to testify, and the court must instruct the jury that this choice cannot be held against the defendant, cannot be used to infer that the defendant is guilty, and that the defendant is presumed innocent until proven guilty regardless of whether he or she testifies.
One of the biggest mistakes defense witnesses fall into is arguing with the prosecutor while testifying. In fact, when you take the stand as a criminal defendant, especially in a case involving anger or violence, the prosecuting attorneys will try to make you lose your temper to show you are more likely to do what they say you did. Keep your cool. Remember that they are trying to bait you and don’t give them the satisfaction of seeing you angry. Save your anger for outside of the courtroom.
It is almost never a good idea for a criminal defendant to testify in their own defense. In almost every case, the risks of what could come out on cross-examination outweigh the benefits of getting the story from the defendant directly. Remember that jurors usually will not weigh what you say about yourself as heavily as what others say about you. Your testimony will necessarily be “self-serving”. If there is another way to present your side of the story or show gaps in the prosecution’s case, your criminal defense attorney will likely recommend you use that instead.
Whether you are on the witness stand or not, the jury will be looking at you throughout the criminal trial. Anything you can do to separate yourself from the person being described by police or the prosecution’s witnesses can help create reasonable doubt.
Criminal defense attorneys, who stand beside clients accused of everything from minor offenses to mass murder, must mount the most effective defense of their client possible no matter how heinous the crime. While their work enforces a person’s constitutional right to a fair trial, some observers chastise them for representing society's villains.
Ask a criminal defense lawyer why they chose that legal subspecialty and the most common answer is that nothing gets their blood going more than a case with high stakes. “Cases move faster and they’re just more interesting than civil cases,” Gates says. “There’s nothing worse than an extended conversation about Article 2 of the Uniform Commercial Code. It’s just more interesting to talk about a bank robbery.”
Once in court, Lichtman focuses on finding the one person in the box of 12 to connect with. “I look up the backgrounds of jurors,” he says. “I’m looking for anything in the background I can exploit in order to tailor my summation to something that’s happened in their lives.”
THEY'RE ALWAYS WATCHING THE JURY'S BODY LANGUAGE. Keeping tabs on a jury means being able to assess which direction they’re leaning. Lichtman says body language can tell him a lot. “You can feel how a trial is going,” he says. Jurors who laugh or smile at his jokes are on his side.
While their work enforces a person’s constitutional right to a fair trial, some observers chastise them for representing society's villains. In their view, that’s missing the point. In addition to making sure the scales of justice are balanced, criminal defense attorneys find satisfaction in tackling cases with high stakes.
To get a better understanding of this often emotionally draining work, Mental Floss spoke with three high-profile defense lawyers. In addition to Lichtman, we talked to Chris Tritico—the subject of the first episode of Oxygen’s In Defense Of docuseries premiering June 25, and who represented Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh in 1997—as well as Bryan Gates, practicing in North Carolina. Here’s what they shared about life as a devil’s advocate.
It might seem like an innocent client would be easier to defend. But according to Gates, having a strong belief that a client is falsely accused creates additional strain on the defense. “It’s very stressful because you’re really identifying with the person,” he says.
It shifts the burden of proof. The burden is always only on the prosecutor, but when there’s two versions of the same event, jurors compare the prosecutor’s story with the defendant’s. Whether the prosecution made its case or not, if they don’t like how the defendant came off, either because they don’t believe him or just don’t like him, they’ll generally convict.
He may have said one thing to police at one time and changed it another. It might be tough for him to explain why he waived Miranda rights and confessed if he didn’t commit the crime. False confessions are often made by vulnerable people — adolescents, the intellectually challenged, or drug users coming off a high and promised by police that confessing will get them back on the street. Getting these same people to coherently explain why they confessed is next to impossible.
Toni Messina has tried over 100 cases and has been practicing criminal law and immigration since 1990. You can follow her on Twitter: @tonitamess.
on September 30, 2019 at 12:44 PM. September 30, 2019 at 10:14 AM. Conventional wisdom has it that when a person is blamed for something he didn’t do, he should protest loudly and often, “I didn’t do it!”. However, it’s rare for a person accused of a crime to testify at his own trial. First, he doesn’t have to.
This all said, many lawyers recommend that when a defendant can testify, he should. In those rare cases where the accused is articulate, has no horrible criminal past, and has a good story to tell, his testimony can win an otherwise loser case.
However, it’s rare for a person accused of a crime to testify at his own trial. First, he doesn’t have to. If all he’s going to say is, it wasn’t me, the presumption of innocence says that already and carries none of the risks of testifying.
Without the defendant testifying, a good defense attorney can always find some weakness in the prosecutor’s case to point out, particularly when it comes to cops — for example what could have been done but wasn’t, or what was done wrong.
Spousal testimonial privilege, barring testimony against a spouse in a criminal trial, and
Courts and the federal and state governments recognize the spousal privilege in order to protect marital relationships from the harm that would befall them if spouses could be forced to testify against each other.
A spouse may waive (or lose the right to assert) the privilege by failing to object to the other spouse's testimony when offered. Either spouse may also waive the privilege by communicating a confidential spousal communication to a third party.
A privilege, which is not a constitutional right, allows a person to object to their own or other's testimony about communications within certain confidential relationships. By contrast, the right not to give testimony against oneself is a constitutional right ("taking the Fifth," in common parlance). Exercising a constitutional right is not ...
Marital communications privilege. Neither spouse can be compelled to testify as to private , confidential communications between them in either criminal or civil proceedings. But, only communications that the spouses intend to be, and maintain as confidential are protected . Not every statement between spouses is confidential or a communication.