"Freedom from self-incrimination means that you cannot be forced to testify against yourself in a criminal trial. This right comes from the Fifth Amendment and can be exercised in all criminal cases.

Defense attorneys may counsel their clients not to take the stand for

their own protection. In addition, the prosecutor is forbidden to

make any statement drawing the jury's attention to the defendant's

refusal to testify. While defendants in a criminal case have a right

not to testify, they also have a right to take the stand and testify if

they wish. (In some other countries, defendants in criminal cases are

 

required to testify.) A defendant does not have to answer an inappropriate

question if her attorney objects to it and the judge sustains

, or agrees with, that objection. This is true for all witnesses, but

 

once a defendant takes the stand, the prosecutor can use anything

she says to elicit contradictory and harmful statements that can be

used against her.

Related to the right against self-incrimination is the concept of

immunity. Being granted immunity means that a witness cannot be

prosecuted based on information provided in a testimony. A person

 

with immunity must answer all questions—even those that are incriminating. Prosecutors often use immunity laws to force people to testify

 

against codefendants or others involved in the crime."

 

Problem 14.4

 

a.  Suppose you are a defense attorney.  What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a criminal defendant testify at trial?

 

b.  If you were a member of the jury in a criminal trial, what would you think if the defendant refused to testify?  Would you be affected by the judge's instruction not to draw any conclusion form this?

 

 c.  If a defendant is forced to stand in a lineup, give a handwriting sample, or take and alcohol breath or urine test, does this violate the privilege against self-incrimination?

 

d.  Do you think that U.S. law should be changed so that defendants are required to testify in criminal cases?  Explain.

 

Freedom from self-incrimination

What are the advantages and disadvantages of having a criminal defendant testify at trial?

The disadvantage is that testifying at trial has many risks as the jury becomes suspicious of a criminal that is testifying in their own defense and this may make the jury tend to discount the credit given by the criminal. As such in most cases it may not make the criminal win the case. In addition, in most cases when the criminal testifies it may make the juror change and shift the burden of proof from the prosecution to the defense (Ruben, 2019). However even with the notable cons, there are pros and they include that it gives the accused a chance to tell their side of the story. This may exonerate the accused especially if they are innocent and wrongly accused (Ruben, 2019).

Step-by-step explanation

If you were a member of the jury in a criminal trial, what would you think if the defendant refused to testify?  Would you be affected by the judge's instruction not to draw any conclusion from this?

If a defendant refused to testify would mean that the defendant is trusting the law to protect their truth. This means that the defendant is trying to avoid being misunderstood by the jury as it is natural human behavior that when one testifies against themselves the jury may become suspicious. This would not affect my decision or drawing conclusion because as it is the right of the defendant not to testify against themselves (Iftene, 2019).

If a defendant is forced to stand in a lineup, give a handwriting sample, or take an alcohol breath or urine test, does this violate the privilege against self-incrimination?

Yes this does violate the privilege of self-incrimination. The defendant is not given time to decide to take the test on their own and forcing them to take the test means that their right to make the decision on their own is taken away from them (Alldridge & Swart, 2019).

Do you think that U.S. law should be changed so that defendants are required to testify in criminal cases?  Explain.

The law should remain as it is where the defendants are not allowed to testify. This is because allowing them to testify may lead to contradiction and abuse of the right to create false truths that would make them be considered innocent even when they are not (Alldridge & Swart, 2019).