[NCLaw441]

I don’t practice criminal defense or con law. However, I think there is a conflict on the issue of using silence as evidence of guilt, which is why the matter is before the Supreme Court.

My discussion is based on my perception of the rationale for the 5th Amendment. We don’t force people to take the stand in their defense, because it seems wrong to do so. We DO allow defendants to testify. It seems fair to me to allow the fact that the Defendant elected not to testify to be argued. The defendant was still not forced to testify.

This only matters if we are trying to determine the truth.

[highball]

We don’t force people to take the stand in their defense, because it seems wrong to do so. We DO allow defendants to testify. It seems fair to me to allow the fact that the Defendant elected not to testify to be argued. The defendant was still not forced to testify.

If not testifying is considered evidence of guilt, then every defendant is absolutely being forced to testify.

What you're suggesting would reverse the burden of proof from the State to the defendant. Terrible idea for the anachronistic among us who still value liberty.