Oy Poor Roy Moore

[Berzerker]

Why are you in the open borders party again?

is that whataboutism?

[Kidlicious]

The next time you ask for a link, be specific so I dont have to ask why you want a link. Now, you want a link to understand jurors judge the defendant's credibility? Seriously?!? How do you think jurors can convict a defendant who denies the accusation if they deemed the defendant's credibility unimpeachable?

Since defendants usually don't even testify, yes. You're wrong and I challenge.

[rah]

Since GUILTY defendants usually don't even testify,

Corrected that for you. Innocent defendants testify all the time.

[Kidlicious]

link?

[Broken_Erika]

link?

[Kidlicious]

The most common defense is that the prosecution failed to prove the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. By raising questions about the credibility of the prosecution's witnesses, the defense counsel seeks to create reasonable doubt in the minds of the jurors so they will acquit the defendant. To cast doubt on the truthfulness and reliability of prosecution witnesses, a defense attorney can use any or all of these tactics:

• Demonstrate bias on the part of prosecution witnesses, who, therefore, may be lying.
• Expose police mistakes in gathering, maintaining, and testing physical evidence.
• Suggest that the prosecution has bribed a witness by granting immunity from prosecution for pending criminal charges in exchange for the witness's testimony against the defendant.
• Challenge the believability of a witness's story on the grounds of logic or common sense.

[Berzerker]

Since defendants usually don't even testify, yes. You're wrong and I challenge.

The defendant testified 'not guilty', that means they're being judged by the jury... They're putting the defendant's credibility up against the credibility of the accusers.

[Ben Kenobi]

We have the word of a handwriting expert... and she didn't forge anything, she never claimed Moore wrote down the date and location, just a blessing with his John Hancock - and the expert agrees that was his writing.

And my point stands with the Babe Ruth signature. You don't add your own pen marks to a signature to make it better.

You didn't hear it from me and I'm not interested in compiling a list

Well then. Case closed.

When did the southern conservatives responsible for slavery become liberals?

They were always liberals, like Oliver Wendell Holmes who supported sterilization.

The Republicans were anti-slavery, thats how they became the Republicans. And they were more liberal than their southern conservative pro-slavery counterparts.

Some were, sure. Many were not.

Nobody said Goldwater supported slavery, your point is a straw man.

So we have a Republican conservative who didn't support slavery. I think we're done here.

[rah]

Yeah, all the time was probably an overstatement. But not testifying sometimes biases the jury despite that the judge instructs the jury otherwise. So the innocent man is more inclined to.testify than a guilty one. Especially if the guilty one has a criminal record that can be introduced if he does testify. An innocent man without a record doesn't have that fear.
But I'll stand corrected.

[Kidlicious]

The defendant testified 'not guilty', that means they're being judged by the jury... They're putting the defendant's credibility up against the credibility of the accusers.

It doesn't work like that. Provide a link.

[ZEE]

[Kidlicious]

Yeah, all the time was probably an overstatement. But not testifying sometimes biases the jury despite that the judge instructs the jury otherwise. So the innocent man is more inclined to.testify than a guilty one. Especially if the guilty one has a criminal record that can be introduced if he does testify. An innocent man without a record doesn't have that fear.
But I'll stand corrected.

Link?

[rah]

Only Kid would ask for a link when I said he was right.

On that it might bias the jury, if it wouldn't why would the judge have to instruct the jury that it shouldn't.

And your prior record can be brought up if you testify.

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/03/business/dealbook/when-to-put-the-defendant-on-the-witness-stand.html

Jurors will always speculate about why a defendant did not testify, especially if the person claims innocence. Courts routinely instruct jurors not to consider the defendant’s decision to remain silent and not take the witness stand in reaching a verdict, but the inference remains, even subconsciously, that someone claiming to be innocent would scream that from the rooftop. So the defendant who chooses not to speak risks letting the government’s portrayal of what happened be the primary evidence on which the jury decides the case.

In cases involving street crimes, many defendants have a criminal history that could be brought out if the person testifies, but will otherwise not come before the jury if the person remains silent.

[Kidlicious]

Look at post 741. How is the descendent testifying achieving any of those goals? The defense doesn't have to prove innocence.

[rah]

I wasn't responding to that post. I was responding to 747

I already agreed with you that it's not as common as I thought.