In New York, the model jury instructions directing jurors not to draw any negative inference from the fact that a defendant didn't testify, don't mention the 5th amendment.
I feel like this is helpful where in popular culture, people conflate "pleading the 5th" with guilt.
I feel like this is helpful where in popular culture, people conflate "pleading the 5th" with guilt.
Also, in my experience, in New York, the judge will always question the person on trial about their decision whether to testify outside the presence of the jury.
Again, I think this is helpful in not causing the jury to speculate about why the decision was made.
Again, I think this is helpful in not causing the jury to speculate about why the decision was made.
People still do, and I will always address it, together with the prosecution having the burden of proof, during jury selection.
A lot of people say they don't feel they can be fair and impartial jurors unless they hear from the defendant and they can then be excused for cause.
A lot of people say they don't feel they can be fair and impartial jurors unless they hear from the defendant and they can then be excused for cause.
I don't know, the way it is done in Minneapolis just seems to shine a big red flashing light on the fact that a person isn't testifying.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
