[AppyPappy]

The jury will see his unwillingness to testify on his own behalf as an admission of guilt. He has to testify to save his neck. If he does testify, I'll bet the farm he gets off.

[the Deejay]

A jury can NEVER hold it against a defendant if they DON'T testify. The judge instructs the jury on this.

[Politicalmom]

Since it is against the law for the jury to hold his not testifying against him, I doubt that. That pesky old
Fifth Amendment thing.

[pyx]

The jury will see his unwillingness to testify on his own behalf as an admission of guilt. He has to testify to save his neck. If he does testify, I'll bet the farm he gets off.

A defendant chosing to testify or chosing not to testify on his or her own behalf should never in any way be construed as an admission or denial of guilt. The defendant in ALL cases MUST be presumed INNOCENT.

[UCANSEE2]

The jury will see his unwillingness to testify on his own behalf as an admission of guilt

I have to disagree. What does he need to testify about? What can he testify to?

He already cooperated with the police and where did that get him? The arrested him because he was cooperative.

His statements have been gone over and over in court and compared to various witnesses testimony as to their truth and accuracy.

If he is not guilty, then he knows nothing about Danielle's disappearance, so what can he testify to ??????? If you can answer that, I might accept your statement. It is usually the stance of the Defense lawyers to not have their client testify. It is a matter of law that you can not be compelled to testify against yourself.