What's new
By:
Filters

Donald is about to go through some things...

Why would a defendant say he would testify?

I guess with the trump the answer is simple. He knows his dumbass followers believe him and then he can tell them that the judge wouldn't let him testify and they would believe that or he could tell them that he did testify and it was the best testifying anyone has ever done and they would believe that.

Or just because he can't talk without lying.

It's trump. He is a dumbass liar

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
To the insanely uneducated here. The true cult. I am baffled I have to explain this to you guys but you also thought Corona came from a pangolin 700 feet from the Wuhan lab that studied Coronavirus. My goodness the lack of basic common sense.

1. The Burden of Proof Rests With Prosecutors.​

The prosecution has to prove that any defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. If they fail to do this, a defendant doesn't need to prove anything.

Even in cases of alleged self-defense, like the Zimmerman case, a defendant may not present any evidence of self-defense. Yet the jury may rightly infer self-defense from evidence presented by the prosecution.

2. 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.

But when a defendant voluntarily takes the stand, he waives the right to "plead the Fifth," and he will be compelled to answer the prosecution's questions as well as his own attorney's.

3. Cross-Examination Is Brutal.​

Once the defendant takes the stand, his defense attorney will ask questions that allow him to explain his story in a way that is most favorable to his case.

However, when the prosecution gets a crack at the defendant during cross-examination, even the most sympathetic and credible defendant can become a seething cauldron of rage or an unbelievable mess.

4. Other Witnesses Can Testify.​

Because of the risk of a defendant being discredited or vilified on the stand, it is often much more prudent to let other witnesses do the heavy lifting in a defendant's case.

Defense witnesses can also testify about a defendant's actions and even their perception of his state of mind without violating the rule against hearsay evidence.

5. Defendant Doesn't Want To.​

This may not necessarily have to do with legal strategy or credibility; a defendant may simply be emotionally uncomfortable with testifying.

Attorneys may attempt to convince their clients to testify, but lawyers are ethically bound to respect their clients' wishes with respect to their defense. Ultimately, defendants who choose not to take the stand base their decisions on mix of emotional, legal, and strategic considerations.

 
Last edited:
More on that subject for the extremely uneducated. This is embarrassing but unlike some I can prove my points and communicate. I don't run away and call people trolls because unlike the Cult, I can debate. I run from nothing like fish does. This is so common sense that I feel like fish is a blatant troll. His name is fish btw..... maybe I've been played this entire time... Because this is basic knowledge and the fact that I have to explain this to adults, especially those with a long rap sheet is nuts.

Why Defendants Rarely Testify​


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. 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.

If there’s more to add, like self-defense, mistake, alibi or, I did it, but please give me a break, that’s a different story. He’ll have no choice but to take the stand. However, there are so many risks to testifying that every attorney worth his salt thinks long and hard about recommending it. No matter what the prosecutor’s evidence, if a defendant testifies, that is what will determine the verdict.

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.

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

abovethelaw.com

Why Defendants Rarely Testify - Above the Law

What problems come up when a defendant testifies?
abovethelaw.com abovethelaw.com
 
Lol fish is taking legal advice from a prostitute and has the gall to speak down to others.

Why Don’t Most Defendants Testify At Their Own Trials?

If you ever been a part of a criminal trial — as a defendant, as a prosecutor, as a witness, as a judge or as someone else who just happened to be in the courtroom — you know that, at least sometimes, defendants don’t testify at their own trial. In fact, this happens more than sometimes. It happens a lot.

According to an Associated Press article published in U.S. News in 2021, there isn’t a lot of recent data on the percentages of defendants who choose to testify or choose not to testify at trial. “That’ll take years to compile,” the article states. “And studies on defendant testimony are few and far between.”

But, according to the piece, “[o]ne study of over 300 criminal trials published in the Cornell Law Review in 2009 found that some 77% of defendants who testified were found guilty.” “Among the defendants who chose not to testify,” the piece continues, “around 72% were convicted.”

There are a lot of reasons why a defendant might choose not to testify at their own trial…

  • Burden of Proof. The prosecutor has the burden of proof in a criminal trial. A prosecutor has to prove a defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant, on the other hand, doesn’t have to prove anything at all. If the prosecutor can’t meet his or her burden, it doesn’t matter what the defendant does.
  • Right Against Self-Incrimination. Defendants in a criminal trial also have a constitutional right against self-incrimination. This means that the government cannot force someone charged with a crime to say something that may incriminate themselves. To take advantage of this right, however, defendants must choose not to testify.
  • Cross-Examination. If a defendant chooses to testify, he or she also opens themselves up to cross-examination by the prosecutor. You might be inclined to think, “So what?” This is especially true if you believe that you have “nothing to hide.” But prosecutors are talented and can trip you up easily and, in some cases, make you look bad.
These aren’t the only reasons a defendant might choose not to testify. But they are some of the most common.

howtojustice.org

Why Don't Most Defendants Testify At Their Own Trials? - How to Justice

In general, most defendants don't testify at their own criminal trials. But the decision whether to testify is always up to you.
howtojustice.org howtojustice.org
 
Last edited:
Lol at posting a bunch of crap everyone already knows. None of us are saying trump should testify to help himself. Some of us would love him to because we know it would make things worse for him. Any idiot would know that. Only an idiot would think anyone has been saying that trump should testify to help himself.

But why do defendants (tump anyways) SAY that they are going to testify? Why does trump say he is going to/wants to? Oh ya, he is a dumbass liar.



Oh geez. Why am I feeding the troll. Always a bad idea. Back to ignoring.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
fishonjazz said:
Lol at posting a bunch of crap everyone already knows. None of us are saying trump should testify to help himself. Some of us would love him to because we know it would make things worse for him. Any idiot would know that. Only an idiot would think anyone has been saying that trump should testify to help himself.

But why do defendants (tump anyways) SAY that they are going to testify? Why does trump say he is going to/wants to? Oh ya, he is a dumbass liar.



Oh geez. Why am I feeding the troll. Always a bad idea. Back to ignoring.

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
Lol no you didn't. Whine about lying while literally lying lol. That's my fish...

If only you cared about the actual president lying. Wouldn't that be something. Just Trump though. Imagine how much you would lose your mind if Trump said his uncle was eaten by cannibals. Or that inflation was 9% when he took office when it was under 2%. Imagine you caring about real life instead of having some weird weird obsession with a guy that has no bearing on anything right now. It's something else. You claim to be right leaning but only talk about Trump. You're the most alt-left Republican that never talks about Republican issues I've honestly ever met. I could sure use your help on some Republican issues outside of Trump sometimes, but you know your friends would turn on you and literally hate you. Call you a cultist. Huh fish? That's why you don't say anything outside of Trump...
 
Poor Fish getting eaten alive by the troll. This is why you don't feed the trolls.
 
LogGrad98 said:
Poor Fish getting eaten alive by the troll. This is why you don't feed the trolls.
Click to expand...
The irony. I am talking politics. You are literally trolling lol.

Trolling is when someone posts or comments online to ‘bait’ people, which means deliberately provoking an argument or emotional reaction. In some cases they say things they don’t even believe, just to cause drama. In other cases, they may not agree with the views of another person or group online, so they try to discredit, humiliate or punish them.

 
LogGrad98 said:
Poor Fish getting eaten alive by the troll. This is why you don't feed the trolls.
Click to expand...
Ya my mistake. I had gotten really good at not clicking the button in the app to view the ignored post. Then for some reason today I clicked the button. Always a bad idea.
I wish the app worked like the web browser. When I'm on jazzfanz.com I can't even see that the troll posted. In the app I see every time that it posts but I have to click something to reveal the post.

Just have to keep practicing not clicking that button. I was doing so well too. Oh well, back to the drawing board

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
fishonjazz said:
Ya my mistake. I had gotten really good at not clicking the button in the app to view the ignored post. Then for some reason today I clicked the button. Always a bad idea.
I wish the app worked like the web browser. When I'm on jazzfanz.com I can't even see that the troll posted. In the app I see every time that it posts but I have to click something to reveal the post.

Just have to keep practicing not clicking that button. I was doing so well too. Oh well, back to the drawing board

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
SteakNEggs said:
The irony. I am talking politics. You are literally trolling lol.

Trolling is when someone posts or comments online to ‘bait’ people, which means deliberately provoking an argument or emotional reaction. In some cases they say things they don’t even believe, just to cause drama. In other cases, they may not agree with the views of another person or group online, so they try to discredit, humiliate or punish them.

Click to expand...
.
 
Now I'm not a huge Glen Beck guy but he explains why the trial has been postponed. @fishonjazz @Red I watched your video yesterday and picked it apart. The blatant lie about an NDA when she admitted it never happened long before 2016. So I ask you to return the favor and watch how Beck breaks down how the FBI literally brought in outside evidence and planted it. Literally, this has been admitted by Jack Smith. They not only tampered with evidence, they planted evidence that didn't even exist. Fish thinks this is all just Cannon being a two tiered system but he can't explain how. Me I can show fish why this is being postponed. You guys talk about threats to Democracy when Joe Bidens FBI is literally planting evidence.

 
This is a very blue state. Imagine if Democrats weren't taking cases from nearly 20 years ago to rig the election and keep Trump off of the campaign trail. As I pointed out even moderates know who the real threat to Democracy is. The ones openly supporting Hamas, the ones taking leading candidates off ballots, the ones using Judges who literally donated to Biden and has a daughter who works for Biden, the ones planting evidence at Mar A Lago that you guys are silent about for obvious reasons.

100,000 people gather New Jersey Trump rally in insane scenes​

Insane pictures show Donald Trump speaking a rally which more than 100,000 Americans attended in scenes akin to a massive pop concert.

 
fishonjazz said:
Why would a defendant say he would testify?

I guess with the trump the answer is simple. He knows his dumbass followers believe him and then he can tell them that the judge wouldn't let him testify and they would believe that or he could tell them that he did testify and it was the best testifying anyone has ever done and they would believe that.

Or just because he can't talk without lying.

It's trump. He is a dumbass liar

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
The cross exam of Stormy, the entire tone of it, was due to Trump telling his lawyers to attack her. It’s killing him that he cannot attack her or say anything he wants.


Further, several experienced court observers pointed out, that the fact that not one single juror was seen taking notes during the cross exam, can be taken as a very good sign that the jury believed Stormy’s testimony.


www.salon.com

Experts: Trump lawyer's Stormy Daniels grilling a "complete disaster"

Instead of key question "undermining Daniels, she got the better of the exchange,” says Norm Eisen.
www.salon.com www.salon.com

Hindsight is 2020, but as Judge Juan Merchan explained to Donald Trump’s defense team on Thursday: If you didn’t want a problematic alleged sexual encounter with your client openly discussed in a Manhattan courtroom, you shouldn’t have brought it up on the first day of trial by denying any such interaction ever took place. And when Stormy Daniels began testifying, recounting in excruciating detail her claimed hotel-room rendezvous with the former president, it was the defense counsel’s job to stand up and say what they believed was out of bounds, Merchan said.

“For the life of me,” Merchan said at the end of Thursday’s proceedings, per ABC News, “I don’t know why Ms. [Susan] Necheles didn’t object.”

Those failures led the judge in Trump’s criminal hush money case from granting a defense motion for a mistrial. But observers of the cross examination that took place earlier in the day can understand why the former president’s lawyers would try.

www.salon.com

Experts: Trump lawyer victim-shaming Stormy Daniels is a "disaster"

Trump attorney Susan Necheles repeatedly sought to paint Daniels as "nutty and slutty," legal analyst says.
www.salon.com www.salon.com
 
Last edited:
Red said:
Those failures led the judge in Trump’s criminal hush money case from granting a defense motion for a mistrial. But observers of the cross examination that took place earlier in the day can understand why the former president’s lawyers would try.
Click to expand...
So you admit it's a hoax. Thank you.

You still refuse to address the judge being Biden donor and his daughter literally working for Biden and Chuck Schumer making him nearly 100 million off of this trial. Why not? Don't you think that's important?
 
Red said:
The cross exam of Stormy, the entire tone of it, was due to Trump telling his lawyers to attack her. It’s killing him that he cannot attack her or say anything he wants.


www.salon.com

Experts: Trump lawyer's Stormy Daniels grilling a "complete disaster"

Instead of key question "undermining Daniels, she got the better of the exchange,” says Norm Eisen.
www.salon.com www.salon.com

Hindsight is 2020, but as Judge Juan Merchan explained to Donald Trump’s defense team on Thursday: If you didn’t want a problematic alleged sexual encounter with your client openly discussed in a Manhattan courtroom, you shouldn’t have brought it up on the first day of trial by denying any such interaction ever took place. And when Stormy Daniels began testifying, recounting in excruciating detail her claimed hotel-room rendezvous with the former president, it was the defense counsel’s job to stand up and say what they believed was out of bounds, Merchan said.

“For the life of me,” Merchan said at the end of Thursday’s proceedings, per ABC News, “I don’t know why Ms. [Susan] Necheles didn’t object.”

Those failures led the judge in Trump’s criminal hush money case from granting a defense motion for a mistrial. But observers of the cross examination that took place earlier in the day can understand why the former president’s lawyers would try.
Click to expand...
This is also admission of a Judge being impartial. He openly admits that what Stormy did was unnecessary but he admits he allowed it to hurt Trump. Right? He's literally admitting that unnecessary evidence that has absolutely nothing to do with the trial is why there's no mistrial. All because the defense didn't object to unnecessary evidence? Can you really not understand this?

Luckily as we see, Trump popularity is growing. 100,000 people in New Jersey. People can see how this is nothing more than a farce. People are seeing through this obvious bs. Well most anyways.
 
Last edited:
Red said:
The cross exam of Stormy, the entire tone of it, was due to Trump telling his lawyers to attack her. It’s killing him that he cannot attack her or say anything he wants.


Further, several experienced court observers pointed out, that the fact that not one single juror was seen taking notes during the cross exam, can be taken as a very good sign that the jury believed Stormy’s testimony.


www.salon.com

Experts: Trump lawyer's Stormy Daniels grilling a "complete disaster"

Instead of key question "undermining Daniels, she got the better of the exchange,” says Norm Eisen.
www.salon.com www.salon.com

Hindsight is 2020, but as Judge Juan Merchan explained to Donald Trump’s defense team on Thursday: If you didn’t want a problematic alleged sexual encounter with your client openly discussed in a Manhattan courtroom, you shouldn’t have brought it up on the first day of trial by denying any such interaction ever took place. And when Stormy Daniels began testifying, recounting in excruciating detail her claimed hotel-room rendezvous with the former president, it was the defense counsel’s job to stand up and say what they believed was out of bounds, Merchan said.

“For the life of me,” Merchan said at the end of Thursday’s proceedings, per ABC News, “I don’t know why Ms. [Susan] Necheles didn’t object.”

Those failures led the judge in Trump’s criminal hush money case from granting a defense motion for a mistrial. But observers of the cross examination that took place earlier in the day can understand why the former president’s lawyers would try.

www.salon.com

Experts: Trump lawyer victim-shaming Stormy Daniels is a "disaster"

Trump attorney Susan Necheles repeatedly sought to paint Daniels as "nutty and slutty," legal analyst says.
www.salon.com www.salon.com
Click to expand...
Yep. So trumps lawyers let everyone one know that they want to talk about stormy right on day one. Judge allows it. Trumpers will obviously claim that it's unfair that they are discussing the stormy and trump encounter because trump is always the victim. Even though it's only happening because the trumps lawyers brought it up at the beginning of the trial.

If the judge decided that the encounter didn't matter in this case and therefore didn't allow it to be discussed then trumpers could say that the judge is being unfair to trump by not allowing the sexual encounter to be discussed. Again, trump is the victim. So silly.



Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
 
fishonjazz said:
Yep. So trumps lawyers let everyone one know that they want to talk about stormy right on day one. Judge allows it. Trumpers will obviously claim that it's unfair that they are discussing the stormy and trump encounter because trump is always the victim. Even though it's only happening because the trumps lawyers brought it up at the beginning of the trial.

If the judge decided that the encounter didn't matter in this case and therefore didn't allow it to be discussed then trumpers could say that the judge is being unfair to trump by not allowing the sexual encounter to be discussed. Again, trump is the victim. So silly.



Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
It's a pretty OP superpower to be able to always be the victim whilst also being the courageous hero. He's spamming the **** out of it, too.
 
fishonjazz said:
One thing we all need to remember about this trial is that trump isn't on trial for whether he slept with stormy or not. That is actually irrelevant to this case.
Click to expand...
Suddenly it's relevant lolololollololollllolollolollollolollol.... YOu are the biggest liar and hypocrite potentially that I've ever met. I honestly mean that. In a matter of a day you flip flop that it's "irrelevant" then the very...next...day... you completely contradict what you said just yesterday. You cannot make this double standard lying hypocrisy up. "One thing we need to remember" then you forget less than 24 hours later. L...o....l...
 
Last edited:
fishonjazz said:
One thing we all need to remember about this trial is that trump isn't on trial for whether he slept with stormy or not. That is actually irrelevant to this case.
Click to expand...
What's unfair is the judge being a Biden Donor and avid supporter but not one of you will address that because you're a hypocrite. You literally have the judges daughter working for Biden and making Chuck Schumer almost 100 million off of this. What's unfair is that Trump can ot talk about this or be put in prison......
 
Sardines said:
It's a pretty OP superpower to be able to always be the victim whilst also being the courageous hero. He's spamming the **** out of it, too.
Click to expand...
Yep. Poor trump. What a rough life he has. Everyone and everything out to get him. Time magazine and the emmys were even out to get him. Its never ever trumps fault for anything. Always just someone being unfair to poor trump.
If only everyone knew that trump knows more about everything that everyone. Too bad only his followers believe that to be true. Poor trump.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top