So when a person like Zimmerman refuses to take the stand in his own defense

[Generic Other]

won't most jury members think he's guilty? Why would an innocent man refuse to take the stand? I don't understand why Zimmerman wouldn't feel morally obligated to defend his good name and the reputation of neighborhood block watch, etc.

I realize he might do more damage to his own case if he testifies, but doesn't keeping him off the stand mean risking that a jury will read that as an admission of guilt? I certainly do and would.

I think the weird cop/consultant who spoke of Zimmerman's total lack of prowess really did describe the cowardly man who I have watched in court these past days. This quivering mass of jello has made his friends and relatives testify for him, has worn $3000 worth of suits his friend bought him to come to court to sit and look drugged. He has maligned and slandered a dead teenager he killed. He pulled the trigger. He owes the state, the citizens and the Martin family an explanation for his behavior.

A coward with a gun in his pants. A coward in the courtroom. And one without shame. Bragging everywhere about his actions. But mute in court. No matter what the outcome of this trial, George Zimmerman does not win in the court of public opinion. Any dreams he had of working in law enforcement are over. He is a worthless man whose actions have been exposed to everyone. His claims of self defense rest on the picture of a fat, incompetent threat to public safety who should not have been roaming the neighborhood armed. A man who may get away with murder.

I predict if he does, he will look over his shoulder and jump at shadows the rest of his miserable life.

Am I right that juries usually don't think much of defendants refusing to take the stand on their own behalf? I know you have the right to do this, but it does not make you look innocent, IMO.

on edit: typo

[msongs]

1. so how many people facing these charges actually "take the stand" in their own defense? nt

[Gman]

2. the jury is specifically instructed not to interpret his refusal to testify as anything but

exercising his right not to testify and it indicates neither guilt nor innocence.

[RedCappedBandit]

6. Well, that settles it then.

[Booster]

33. Thanks. Made me laugh outloud.

[WinkyDink]

72. Yes, frankly, it does. Unless you have cases to prove the contrary?

[RedCappedBandit]

89. Nope, I have no evidence that people sometimes don't follow directions.

Congratulations, you win!

[Hugabear]

8. But they will

Just because you tell someone to do something, doesn't mean they will.

Why do you think the defense fought so hard to get that animation shown to the jury? Even though it wasn't admissible as evidence, they still wanted to show it.

[avebury]

49. While that is correct, the Jury

can still use Zimmerman's numerous interviews, including the walk through recreation and Sean Hannity interview in determining his credibility. If I were on the jury I would have a major problem with the fact that he looked Hannity right in the eye and told a bold face lie. I would have further issues regarding other parts of his story as well.

[Gman]

66. Exactly, taking the stand then could be disastrous

Not that I would mind...

[Deep13]

52. Sometimes they comply with that. nt

[Gman]

67. It obviously could influence a juror's votes but

It cannot be a part of deliberations. That would be grounds for an immediate mistrial.

[MrScorpio]

86. Exactly. nt

[Travis_0004]

3. He has every right not to take the stand.

Jury instructions are usually quite clear on this. The instructions will say something to the effect of:

The Constitution of the United States grants a defendant the right to remain silent. No presumption of guilt may be raised and no inference of any kind may be drawn, by any juror, from the fact that a defendant does not take the witness stand and testify. As stated before, the law never imposes upon a defendant in a criminal case the burden or duty of calling any witnesses or of producing any evidence. The government has the burden of proving the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, and if it fails to do so, you must acquit the defendant.

[Bjorn Against]

4. They will be told not to judge him on the decision

The jury is made up of human beings however, just because they are told not to consider it doesn't mean they won't consider it. What it means for the verdict I don't know.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. It's very rare for a defendant to take the stand

whether or not his lawyer knows (or believes) he's innocent. I don't care how pure your life has been; a skilled prosecutor can find every weak spot in your version of the events, and can make a choirboy look like Charles Manson. It is the height of folly in almost all cases for any defendant to testify, and all defense lawyers know that. I wouldn't let Jesus testify in his own defense, let alone George Zimmerman. Whatever risks they take that the jury might take a dim view of a failure to testify (regardless of the judge's instructions that they are not to consider it), the risk of being eaten for lunch on the witness stand is almost always far greater.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

7. +1

[Generic Other]

18. I didn't realize that was so

But certainly OJ did not testify. That made me think he was guilty too!

So if you really are innocent, should you also not testify? It kust seems one would want to plead one's case.

[Lucinda]

20. The problem a good prosecutor can do damage to a defendant,

even an innocent one, if they don't hold up well to antagonistic questioning.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

21. In most case it's too risky

because even an innocent person can be made to look guilty by a skilled prosecutor. I thought OJ was guilty, too, but not because he didn't testify.

[WinkyDink]

73. THAT is what made you think OJ was guilty? Not the blood evidence, DNA, Bruno Maglis, sweating in

the limo to the airport, the "suicide run," the injured hand ("I threw a glass&quot , the previous wife-beatings, the glove found near where Kato felt a "thump" on his wall, .........?

Whatever.

[Generic Other]

83. Of course the evidence seemed weighed against him too

but not testifying seemed an admission of guilt to me at the time. Guess I didn't have a wealth of legal experts on DU analyzing the case for me at the time.

I am trying to imagine how DU would have reacted to OJ.

[TheKentuckian]

88. I think this is the stuff of basic civics. I think this should be a disqualifier

if a person doesn't have absolute respect for this concept.

The burden of proof is on the prosecution, the defense has no reason to prove anything other than to thwart the state.

[justanaverageguy]

9. maybe I'm just a bit optimistic

but i think that most people are savvy enough to understand why you don't take the stand in a case like this and give the prosecution the opportunity to rip you to shreds on cross exam. I don't think it hurts

[Generic Other]

26. Well no, not me apparently

If I was innocent, I would hope I could face any accuser and state my piece.

The law is a sham.

[Bonduel]

51. But if your lawyer told you not to would you still do it?

It's not if your guilty or not. Sometimes it's how you come across and I don't think anyone can say how calm they would look knowing the whole world is looking at you.

I would never allow my client to testify unless the case was going so badly I felt desperate.

[Generic Other]

55. Having lived a long life without ever being involved with the law

this is a serious schooling for me.

I believe I am a good judge of character. I take an individual at their word unless I have reason not to. Maybe my form of justice hearkens to a different day when a person valued their good reputation and would readily stand to defend their honor (especially if innocent). Even as I am typing these words I can see how old-fashioned they sound. Almost like I am a throwback to a time when disputes were settled by placing your hand in an open flame to prove your innocence.

OK, counselor, I guess I promise not to ever jeopardize my defense by actually defending myself. What ridiculous thinking on my part! There is something not quite right about this concept. But I see now that the 5th is the default position for everybody -- not just for the mob! I plan to take it from now on about everything in my life since it won't be an admission of guilt.

I wonder how come I am still getting that dirty look:

"Hey, do these pants make me look fat?"
"I take the 5th."

[Quantess]

10. Zimmerman has already opened his trap for tv interviews

which would be used against him in cross examination. That's what I gather from the legal peanut gallery.

[Travis_0004]

11. It actually put zimmerman in a unique situation

He got to tell his side of the story, but not have to face cross examination.

Obviously the prosecutor thought the video's helped their case, or they wouldn't have played them. The defense would not have been allowed to play the videos without zimmerman on the stand.

[yardwork]

82. That's one reason it looks bad that he didn't testify in court.

Everybody has the right not to testify on their own behalf, and most defendants choose to exercise that right to remain silent and let their attorneys do the talking. I get that.

But it looks really, really bad that Zimmerman gave TV interviews and even reenacted the scene on videotape, but then won't tell his story in court. It looks like he knows that he'll get caught in his multiple lies. Which he would.

[jbond56]

12. Its unethical to let a lying defendant to take the stand.

[Generic Other]

35. Oddly this almost makes sense

[Demo_Chris]

13. They cannot hold his refusal to testify against him, but...

But he is asserting that he had no choice but to shoot this kid, and one hopes that his refusal to answer questions on this and clear up any misunderstandings will weigh against him.

[customerserviceguy]

14. They'll think he's acting on advise of counsel

and that legal team has done a pretty credible job, outside of a knock-knock joke and dummy wrestling. I would sense that they've seen at least a few inconsistencies in things GZ has said, and probably recognize why his lawyers gave him the advice not to testify, and while they may well suspect that he's not a fine upstanding young man, they certainly won't know the specifics about what the prosecution would have ripped him apart with had he climbed into that witness box.

It's no worse than a wash between what they would have thought of him had he gotten on the stand, and what they will think of him for not doing so.

[Generic Other]

22. But central to his case is his law abiding persona

A man with nothing to hide. Why fear telling the truth when he is really the hero here as he has allowed others to paint him? Why act like he was an upstanding citizen with nothing to fear from the law all the way up until he walks into a courtroom? He made everyone fight his battles for him. A coward.

[customerserviceguy]

39. Either the jury will follow the instructions

to disregard the fact that he didn't take the stand, or they won't. We'll probably never know, as I certainly hope the jury members can stay anonymous for their own safety.

[metalbot]

62. An upstanding citizen would be insane to take the stand in their defense

If you've been accused of a crime, and the DA has chosen to indict, and has presented a case against you, you would be absolutely insane to try to take the stand to defend yourself, even if you are 100% not guilty. The prosecution has to prove someone guilty. If the only thing that is preventing you from being found guilty based on all of the other evidence presented is whether or not you talk take the stand in your defense, you are probably going to be found guilty no matter what you say. If there is enough wiggle room in their evidence that you could provide a reasonable defense by testifying personally, then you would be better off NOT testifying, because that wiggle room in the evidence is the doubt necessary to get a not guilty verdict.

If you'd like a fascinating discussion of why even a 100% innocent person should not talk to the police (and by extension not testify in court), here's a fascinating talk given by a defense attorney:

" target="_blank">

[Generic Other]

65. Very informative. Thanks

Really good examples.

[pipi_k]

15. Well, one thing

I can say is...

not taking the stand in his own murder trial didn't seem to hurt OJ Simpson any, now did it?

[Generic Other]

24. You are right he got his acquittal in the eyes of the law

but he didn't get away with his crime either. His career was ruined. He lost his fortune. As the years went by, fewer believed he was innocent.

[pipi_k]

42. That's true...

but I'm sure he was such a huge egomaniac that he never thought his life would turn out the way it did after the trial.

He did avoid prison, though, which was his main goal at the time.

[lynne]

16. Can't speak for all jury members but if I were on the jury -

- his not taking the stand wouldn't indicate guilt to me. Particularly in this trial as he's been heard from several times via recorded statements, interviews, etc. It's not as though his own opinion hasn't been presented to the jury.

What it does tell me is that his attorneys are fairly sure they've made a good case and are confident in the outcome. They don't want to risk him making a blunder on the stand and blowing the case for them.

I don't see it as a matter of looking innocent or not, more a matter of taking the advice of his counsel.

[Skittles]

31. his lawyers know his ridiculous story would be shredded if he testified

so yes, it is indeed sound advice

[MiniMe]

17. He basically got to testify when they played the tapes of the interviews he made

after the shooting. The ones where he was explaining, um, lying about what happened. I still don't understand why the prosecution allowed them, at least I don't think they objected. It let him give "testimony" without having to be cross examined. After the OJ trial, nothing will surprise me about the outcome in this case.

[Sissyk]

45. The prosecution allowed them because

the Prosecution admitted them into evidence. Not the defense.

[MicaelS]

19. Did OJ Simpson take the stand?

No, and he was found Not Guilty of two murders.

[onenote]

23. This is the instruction the jury will be given:

Florida Standard Criminal Jury Instructions:

3.9(d) DEFENDANT NOT TESTIFYING

Give either paragraph, or both, if defendant requests.

The constitution requires the State to prove its accusations against the defendant. It is not necessary for the defendant to disprove anything. Nor is the defendant required to prove innocence. It is up to the State to prove the defendant's guilt by evidence.

The defendant exercised a fundamental right by choosing not to be a witness in this case. You must not view this as an admission of guilt or be influenced in any way by decision. No juror should ever be concerned that the defendant did or did not take the witness stand to give testimony in the case.

Does that ensure that none of the jurors might nonetheless draw an inference of guilt from his declining to testify? No. But I would bet that several of the jurors take the instruction seriously and if, during deliberations, any of the other jurors bring it up, they will be reminded by their fellow jurors that they were instructed not to give it any weight. Quite clearly, his lawyers feel the risk of his not testifying being held against him is less than the risk that he damages his defense by testifying. And they're probably right.

[NoGOPZone]

25. OJ Simpson

this post has no point, I've just seen his name mentioned several times already and wanted to join in the fun.

[Generic Other]

28. Didn't he try on the glove?

I guess I thought he did testify because I remember the glove thing.

[moondust]

27. No way his lawyers were going to let him.

His story is so full of holes (because he's lying his ass off), they were never going to let him get on the stand and be mercilessly shredded and humiliated by the prosecution before a live audience.

[Generic Other]

30. I thought that mercilessly humiliating him was the defense strategy today

That cop turned consultant made Zimmerman sound like a cowering wimp.

[moondust]

34. Ha. I saw that.

Something to the effect that "it might have been different with a person who has some ability or physical prowess, but I don't see any of that in Mr. Zimmerman."

[Generic Other]

36. He even said Zimm was more like Pee Wee Herman

than Chuck Norris. Slandering Pee Wee. But I think we get what he's saying here.

George Zimmerman killed a kid because he is a scared little bully who works out three times a week for two years at a gym where he is viewed as a pudgy weakling.

[ecstatic]

58. the only similarity is that they're both child molesters

Z has a documented history of violence.

[Generic Other]

60. I suppose he meant what Pee Wee's fighting stance would look like

not exactly intimidating for a man taking MMA training 3 X a week for a year. The "Pee Wee" defense did nothing to make Zimmerman look like John Wayne. It's actually kind of funny coming from his own defense team.

[Grammy23]

75. Yes, for real.....Zimmerman should ask for a refund from the gym.

Somebody at that gym owes him big time for taking his money and not telling him the flat out truth. He just was not cutting it. You can bet they continued to take his money and allowed him to take classes, even though they knew he was a wimp and not going to progress past the level of the guy who always got sand kicked in his face by the beach bully.

[cthulu2016]

29. IIRC, Jury instructions often tell juries they are to draw no conclusions from such non-testimony

[Generic Other]

32. How could you not take it into account in this case

since his manhood is being called into question. How do you walk away without defending yourself when you were so all fired willing to defend your self that night by running after some kid, getting in a fight and shooting him? Good thing I am not on the jury.

[COLGATE4]

40. You know, armchair quarterbacking about what

any given person would do if they were actually on the jury is fun to be sure but it's pure fantasy. In my experience most jurors take their role very seriously, and try and give great weight to the judge's instructions (as well as following the prohibition about discussing the case among themselves prior to deliberation). It's very different when it's you in the jury box for three weeks and have yourself seen and felt all the deliberations that go on in the case, particularly when you know that you have the power to put another person behind bars for many years. I don't think anyone watching the case on T.V. can truly state what they would have done in a juror's shoes.

[Generic Other]

41. I don't speak for anyone but myself

I could not in this case vote to acquit him under these circumstances. The real jury will come to its own decision without me. Lucky for Zimmerman.

[cthulu2016]

44. Perhaps by being a thinking person, or even just an American?

[Generic Other]

46. Then I will never serve on a jury because it does not serve justice

Thanks for clearing it up for me. It's about money, power, ability to twist words to make them mean what you want.

And what the hell? Are you saying I am not an American and stupid to boot. Thanks for making it personal.

[WinkyDink]

74. YOU, apparently, would be a crappy juror. GOOD jurors consider evidence exactly as they are supposed

to.

[Generic Other]

85. Yes I have been told all my life I don't fit the mold

So I am a crappy American, crappy thinker, crappy juror. So many . And why am I such a weak brained thinker? Oh yeah. Because I think for myself not how I am INSTRUCTED to think? Seriously. Listen to yourself. And pray I am never on your jury.

[AngryAmish]

64. This is the thing: juries ignore the instructions

Whether they admit it or not, each of the jurors have their mind made up already. They usually make it up during opening statements. And once someone makes up their mind they filter all the evidence through their particular preconceived notion. They ignore evidence that is against their prejudice while seizing on anything to support their versions of events. There is a lot of research that backs this up.

So do people change their votes in the jury room? Sure, to get along with the group. But if the jurors are getting along they will reach a consensus. It usually is pretty quick but sometimes the jury stays out because they don't want people to think they came to a conclusion too quick. But if they go out on a Friday afternoon, expect a quick verdict.

The point of closing and jury instructions is to give people on your side in the jury room something to argue to other jurors - and that only works if they are already with your side. SO if jurors 1-4 are for guilty and 5 and 6 not guilty, then juror 1 will pick up the jury instruction and say "well the law says X". Jurors 5 and 6, now knowing that the group wants guilty, will change their mind and the jury instruction allows them the fig leaf to say their mind is changed - even if in their heart of hearts it is not changed.

Also, it is not entirely unknown to allow an improper instruction to get in to give yourself reversible error in case things break bad in the jury room.

Every trial lawyer hates jury instructions - they are a pain in the arse.

[Generic Other]

87. At least you have made a point of observing jury behavior

because it is clearly not always based on logic or even justice apparently since you suggest even time of week can have a bearing. The state can't yet get in the juror's head.

Anyway, I will be sure and tell the court if I am called to jury duty in the future that DUers have deemed me unfit.

[Duer 157099]

37. I tend to agree with this perspective

even though I know the logical arguments.

Especially with this prosecution team. They'd probably handle him with kid gloves. Think the jury doesn't see that too? Of course they do. All the more reason to wonder why he wouldn't. Jmho

[russspeakeasy]

38. I don't blame him. It would be impossible to remember

all the lies this guy has told. He's gong down for manslaughter. Sentence, 20 years, out in 10.

[pnwmom]

43. That's like asking why would an innocent man hire an attorney

before talking to the police?

The police and the DA have ways of asking questions that can make even an innocent person appear to be guilty. For tactical reasons, there can be many reasons an attorney would advise an innocent person not to testify. For example, a DU could pursue a line of questioning that could prejudice a jury against an innocent defendant. Even if the defense attorney objected and the judge ruled that the question shouldn't have been asked, the jury would still be affected.

I think Zimmerman is guilty, but not because he didn't testify. Unfortunately, because of the way the case was botched by the police, I'm not sure there was enough evidence for 2nd degree murder; but there was for manslaughter.

[Generic Other]

47. In this case we have a "law abiding" defendant

a man who has made this the central part of his defense -- his volunteer citizen watch activities. Why would he have any fear of facing the jury and looking them in the eye and pleading his case? He's been assaulted. He was practically a LEO. Trayvon Martin was suspicious and he had the right to follow and accost him. He called 911. He did everything "right."

So the reticence to testify is pertinent to me. It disputes the argument that he is open and honest and forthright and unafraid to face the justice system and defend his actions because he knows he was in the right. If Zimmerman is guilty, the entire justice system is on trial too. He is defending himself, his manhood, the law, and the reputation of his neighborhood watch program. So we are left to conclude Zimmerman is a coward who is hiding behind the very law he claims to serve.

I think in most cases, I can understand not having the defendant testify -- especially when they will hurt their own cases, but when you are clearly defending a legal principle you live your life by, when you have dedicated yourself to being an upstanding citizen under the law, one who can be trusted to follow the letter of the law -- his refusal to testify undermines his whole line of argument in my mind.

But everyone on this thread says I am ignorant and uninformed. So I guess, I will decline jury duty in the future as I am incapable.

[markiv]

48. you would be violating jury instructions if you did this

"I realize he might do more damage to his own case if he testifies, but doesn't keeping him off the stand mean risking that a jury will read that as an admission of guilt? I certainly do and would"

Almost every judge in the land will tell a jury they CANNOT use his/her silence against them, and if you've ever been in a real (not tv) courtroom in your life you'll know that every word someone in the witness chair says gets twisted into absurd proportions. a defendant has the absolute right to stand mute and let the prosector shoulder the burdon of proof

you want to take away this right, just to get Zimmerman? Fine

Just remember that precident will apply to every african american defendant in the future, too

[Iggo]

50. You don't take the stand for the same reason you don't talk to the cops.

They're not your friend and they're not there to help you.

[Generic Other]

56. Zimmerman was totally transparent to them

I mean that is part of his character according to them. He wants to be a LEO -- even a judge he told one of the Sanford cops. He didn't get a lawyer then. Only after.

And the cops seemed pretty sympathetic toward him. Anyway even though I can see why most defendants would not want to risk testifying, it seems that his testimony could only strengthen his case. Unless of course he's a lying POS. Not cooperating after doing everything right all the way until this moment seems out of character.

It just seems as if he should have welcomed in fact even insisted on the opportunity to clear his name. I mean if he is John Wayne out on the streets, wouldn't he be Jimmy Stewart in the courtroom?

[anomiep]

68. The objective of the prosecution is not to find out what is true

The prosecutor today argued that because Zimmerman knew the name of the street while doing the walkthrough, that he was lying when he stated that he did not know the street name. Knowing the street name during a walkthrough that occurred some time after the shooting does *not* mean that he was lying about not knowing the street name the night the event occurred.

Now, Zimmerman could certainly be lying about not knowing the street name. I am not stating anything here about whether or not he knew or didn't know the street name at the time of the shooting. Whether or not he was lying is irrelevant to the point I am about to attempt to make.

The point is that the prosecutor claimed something that logically cannot be proof that he did know the street name at the time of the shooting is proof that he knew the street name at the time of the shooting. Zimmerman likely had plenty of time between the night of the shooting and the day of the walkthrough to find out the street name if he really didn't know it. It's not proof, but the prosecution claimed it is.

If I am ever tried for a crime, guilty or innocent (I would expect that if that ever occurred I would be innocent), I would not want to be subject to questioning in front of a jury by someone whose motive is not to determine the truth, but to get a conviction. Sometimes the truth is in line with getting a conviction, and sometimes it's not - as many clients of the innocence project could testify to.

[Iggo]

70. Like anomiep says above, it's not a search for truth, it's a search for a conviction.

The defendant has nothing to prove.

It's up to the prosecution to either succeed or fail at proving its case.

[Hippo_Tron]

90. Lots of people talk to the cops and then are subsequently told by their attorney...

That talking to the cops was a really stupid idea.

Completely innocent people are totally capable of incriminating themselves both by talking to the cops and by taking the stand. Regardless of whether he is innocent or guilty, Zimmerman is, at this point, almost certain to get off for 2nd degree murder and it's fairly likely he'll get off for manslaughter. He has no incentive to take the stand.

Does the fact that he won't testify help prove that he's a liar and a scumbag? Sure, maybe it does. Does it help prove that he's guilty of murder or manslaughter? Nope, because the 5th amendment applies just as much to liars and scumbags as it does to everyone else.

[MineralMan]

53. In most criminal cases, the defendant doesn't testify.

Most attorneys advise against it, for one simple reason. The defendant who testifies often opens doors that can be explored during cross-examination. Doors that have remained closed during the rest of the trial. It is the cross-examination where defendants often impeach themselves and makes errors that are harmful to their case.

Prosecuting attorneys almost always hope the defendant testifies. They can then question the defendant in ways that will reveal more than the defense wishes to reveal. It's a bad idea.

[JustAnotherGen]

57. +1

[Generic Other]

63. So all these doors are full skeletons that will fall out?

I guess that is probably so in Zimmerman's case. So I concede that it was not in his interest to testify. But I would still argue in this case it might backfire. The jury is like me -- ms. average female with no legal expertise. No matter what I am not going to be able to disregard his failure to look me in the eye. I see him as a coward in this act when his whole case has been to tell me he is a hero. He is asking me to rule in his favor against my inclination to sympathize with the dead kid.

Does the case's outcome rely on logical arguments or emotional ones? Which will more likely sway 6 women?

I am ms. average as I said. Everyone on this thread is schooling me on what the law says a jury member must think about this man taking the 5th in this specific case. There is the risk that this will backfire. Maybe I am wrong.

But I will remember never to testify if I am ever in trouble with the law. Especially if I am innocent because the law does not protect the innocent. Got it.

[struggle4progress]

54. I think these are the jury instruction rules in Florida:

... 3.9(d) DEFENDANT NOT TESTIFYING

Give either paragraph, or both, if defendant requests.

The constitution requires the State to prove its accusations against the defendant. It is not
necessary for the defendant to disprove anything. Nor is the defendant required to prove <his><her>
innocence. It is up to the State to prove the defendant's guilt by evidence.

The defendant exercised a fundamental right by choosing not to be a witness in this case.
You must not view this as an admission of guilt or be influenced in any way by <his><her> decision.
No juror should ever be concerned that the defendant did or did not take the witness stand to give
testimony in the case.

Comment

This instruction was adopted in 1981 ...

FLORIDA STANDARD JURY INSTRUCTIONS IN CRIMINAL CASES
http://www.floridasupremecourt.org/jury_instructions/chapters/entireversion/onlinejurryinstructions.pdf

[Generic Other]

59. I don't see how I could do this

So if I was on the jury and perpetually kept mulling this over in my mind, would I have to ask to be excused?

I am saying this only in this Zimmerman case as so much of his case rests on being a law abiding, open honest transparent person. Except in this one instance I musn't think about.
Do you see the conflict I am having at all?

[struggle4progress]

61. Jurors should vote to convict only if the evidence presented convinces them beyond

reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt

[etherealtruth]

69. I think Zimmerman is murdering scum

Not taking the stand doe not lead me to any conclusions about a defendent

[WinkyDink]

71. Your opening question is all I needed to read to know YOU do not grasp American jurisprudence.

[Generic Other]

78. Actually I was educated way upthread

many times. So I now understand what you are saying and agree with you.

[Raine]

76. No, if I was guilty I wouldn't take the stand & if I was not-guilty I would be even less inclined to

to take the stand. I've been on a jury and it made no difference whatsoever.

[Generic Other]

79. There is something sad about that

It seems like wheel of fortune. Take a spin.

[Jenoch]

77. In this case especially, the defendant did not need

to take the stand because they got his version of events in the testimony without him testifying. Sometimes the only way to get the defendants story in is for them to testify, but most often the defendant does not testify in their own defense. It's not at all like the TV courtroom dramas.

[bravenak]

80. If I were him I'd not take the stand either.

The prosecution would eat him alive.

[Savannahmann]

81. The decision is based upon numerous factors

Does the jury know his side of the story? Certainly, they viewed, and can review the video description of events that the prosecution entered into evidence. People here shouted, screamed, frothed about that for some time. He testified without testifying. You can't cross examine the video, all you can do is watch it and see what the Defendant said happened.

All the arguments that he could have made on the stand, were made for him, many by the prosecutions witnesses under the cross examination. So why would he testify? It allows the Prosecution to badger him, and people here say trip him up, but they could also mis-represent his story by twisting the testimony out of all shape and size.

No, I don't think his refusal to testify will be seen as an admission of guilt. I think it was smart. The jury is sequestered. His testimony, and cross examination could have gone on for days. That is more time for the jury away from their families, and more time locked down prisoner like with restricted access to media, entertainment, and information. Better to close it out quickly, your message is out there remember, and then leave it up to them.

[alarimer]

84. I have read that it is generally a bad idea to take the stand in your own trial.

I guess because people sometimes go off the rails, guilty or not.