- Joined
- Apr 18, 2013
- Messages
- 94,358
- Reaction score
- 82,748
- Location
- Barsoom
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
Chauvin is NOT REQUIRED to testify.
When you're guilty as sin and you know the facts won't support your acquittal, testifying under oath is the last thing you want to do.
Everyone here knows that and nobody said otherwise.
In this trial, the defense has already put this on the threshold of reasonable doubt for at least two of the charges (murder 2 and 3), so why risk having Chauvin on the stand to risk that if he doesn't come off the right way?
He didn't have to ask the judge to read the instructions. They all do that like breathing. Even though the judge will instruct the jurors to not hold Chauvin's refusal to take the stand against him, they still do in the back of their minds.Chauvin telling the judge he plans on invoking the 5th, and he wants the judge to read instructions that his refusing to testify cannot be used as evidence against him:
View attachment 67328726
The judge gave Chauvin the choice of whether to have those instructions read to the jury or not, and Chauvin had to answer yes or no to having them read.He didn't have to ask the judge to read the instructions. They all do that like breathing. Even though the judge will instruct the jurors to not hold Chauvin's refusal to take the stand against him, they still do in the back of their minds.
You understand very little about how this works. Even if you are 100% certain in your own mind of your innocence, you still would not want to take the stand. Same way you should never talk to the police under any circumstances without a lawyer present. Juries may draw inferences from anything you say on the stand by the way a prosecution attorney may artfully frame the questions, and then require only a yes of no answer. A game you should NEVER put yourself into. Same way when being questioned by the police during and investigation. If you take the stand, even if you are 100% innocent, you are putting yourself at risk. Conversely, juries are specifically instructed that they MAY NOT draw any inferences or conclusions about a defendant who does not take the stand.
"Never" is false. There are cases where the only way to put the bare minimum evidence before the jury required for the judge to instruct the jury on your theory of defense is for the defendant to testify. For example, self-defense in a case where either there were no witnesses
When you're guilty as sin and you know the facts won't support your acquittal, testifying under oath is the last thing you want to do.
What Alpaca said is 100% correct. Nothing you said refutes that fact.You understand very little about how this works.
Chauvin is NOT REQUIRED to testify.
Excellent point. Likewise, just to make sure everyone is clear on this, apple pie SOMETIMES CONTAINS apples.
Let's be honest. Most prosecutors are not looking for justice, they are looking for a win and a way to advance their careers. How often do you hear about prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense team, which is illegal.You understand very little about how this works. Even if you are 100% certain in your own mind of your innocence, you still would not want to take the stand. Same way you should never talk to the police under any circumstances without a lawyer present. Juries may draw inferences from anything you say on the stand by the way a prosecution attorney may artfully frame the questions, and then require only a yes of no answer. A game you should NEVER put yourself into. Same way when being questioned by the police during and investigation. If you take the stand, even if you are 100% innocent, you are putting yourself at risk. Conversely, juries are specifically instructed that they MAY NOT draw any inferences or conclusions about a defendant who does not take the stand.
I seriously doubt that "everyone" knows that, as many are already assuming his guilt is for certain, and just like you yourself just stated, he is "guilty as sin".
In this trial, the defense has already put this on the threshold of reasonable doubt for at least two of the charges (murder 2 and 3), so why risk having Chauvin on the stand to risk that if he doesn't come off the right way?
A criminal defendant is a criminal defendant. Their job before they were charged is 100% irrelevant as to their constitutional rights as a criminal defendant.I'm conflicted on this.
While I don't think people should be forced to testify against themselves I think police officers who are supposed to uphold the law should be held to a higher standard.
I can see arguments for both sides on this, it's certainly not as easy a question to answer as some think.
Former Minneapolis police officer Derek Chauvin, on trial for the murder of George Floyd on May 25, 2020, told the judge that he is invoking his Fifth Amendment right to not testify.
I think this is the correct decision on Chauvin's part. The prosecution would eat him alive on the witness stand. I'm sure his attorney (Eric Nelson) advised him to not testify.
Police officers often testify on their behalf in compensatory arbitration hearings, but rarely (perhaps only 5%) in a criminal trial where they are the defendant.
Let's be honest. Most prosecutors are not looking for justice, they are looking for a win and a way to advance their careers. How often do you hear about prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense team, which is illegal.
Let's be honest. Most prosecutors are not looking for justice, they are looking for a win and a way to advance their careers. How often do you hear about prosecutors withholding exculpatory evidence from the defense team, which is illegal.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?