MovieChat Forums > Making a Murderer (2015) Discussion > Why Didn't Avery Testify? Not a Sign of ...

Why Didn't Avery Testify? Not a Sign of Innocence

posted 8 years ago by todd2001
13 replies | jump to latest

I'm not sure if Steven Avery is innocent or guilty (it's a very compelling case) but I will say that the fact Avery didn't testify in his own defense is a pretty good sign that he's guilty. Think about it - If you were truly innocent and you also knew that the prosecution's case was pretty strong - and it is strong, minus the rare circumstances we have here in which LE has a genuine motive to plant/manipulate evidence to convict Avery - wouldn't you testify in your defense? Wouldn't that be an easy decision? I know I would. Even if my counsel advised against it, I would overrule them and do it in a heartbeat. I'd be eager to have my side of the story be told - not just to rebut the prosecutor's story, but to tell my story for the first time. I don't even recall a discussion among Avery's lawyers about whether or not they should do it, which is a little strange (since other tactical decisions behind the scenes were shown on-camera). And I know legally, a jury can't use a defendant's decision not to testify against him, but from an objective standpoint of innocence vs. guilt, I think it's fair game for the rest of us. Thoughts? Was there anything said by Avery or his lawyers as to why Avery didn't testify?

[–] FactUnderChecK 8 years ago

His lawyers almost certainly would have advised against it. Taking the stand in your own murder trial even if you are innocent is the riskiest thing you could possibly do - to the point that its dumber than playing chicken on the highway.

[–] Moonlighty 8 years ago

I hope you are never on a jury. People on trial rarely take the stand for various reasons and it's horrifying you'd use that as a sign of guilt. Please, if you ever get called for jury duty, mention this just so they know you are too stupid to serve.

-
Consider the daffodil. And while you're doing that I'll be over here looking through your stuff.

[–] law607 8 years ago

It would have been a horrible decision for him to testify even if he was 1000% innocent.

Kratz, as creepy and ignorant as he was would have had an absolute field day with SA on the stand.

My guess is, if SA insisted on testifying on his behalf...His 2 attorneys would have withdrawn from the case.

[–] Allison44 (602) 4 years ago

What a shitty way to respond to a question.

[–] ToHelenBackAgain 8 years ago

Testifying in your own defense is a terrible idea, with few and rare exceptions, none applicable here. People often think the prosecution won't be able to manipulate them and make them look guilty, if they're innocent, but they do. They're very, very good at it. That's why it's their job.

Most of the time, that's a good thing. Plenty of very dumb guilty people will insist on taking the stand, against good legal advice, and they get rightly torn to shreds and convicted.

But once in a while, someone who's not guilty is also dumb enough to testify, and they run the risk of being wrongly torn to shreds and convicted. As far as can be determined to date, it looks like wrongful convictions are rare (though not as rare as once thought), but they do happen, and testifying unnecessarily is a GREAT way to end up with one.

It's up to the prosecution to prove their case, not the defense to disprove it. That's a guiding principle in our legal system for very good reason.

More:

http://www.johntfloyd.com/defendant-testify-defense/

https://blog.simplejustice.us/2013/03/07/but-the-defendant-didnt-testify/

"Oh, I'll be polite. Right up until I'm rude."

[–] paranoja 8 years ago

As someone who believes Avery is guilty, I don't think his not taking the stand plays into that. If I was accused of something - falsely or not - I don't think I'd take the stand. A lot of people contradict themselves during a normal conversation, imagine what someone who's trained to get people to contradict themselves can do?

Bad, bad idea.

[–] Corpus_Vile 8 years ago

I think both Avery & Dassey are guilty, but I wouldn't necessarily regard a defendant not testifying as anything suspicious. A good lawyer coulda tied someone like Avery up in knots imo, whether he did it or not and a good prosecutor could probably tear an innocent defendant to shreds anyway. I'd imagine any defence lawyer prefers the defendant not to testify as it's one less thing to worry about ultimately.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

[–] xXenomicXx 8 years ago

Uh, because Steven Avery is guilty!

[–] grabacontroller-24-484153 8 years ago

I believe that Steven Avery is not guilty. You people have too much faith in the justice system!

[–] Stirchley 8 years ago

Steven was also given the choice of asking for a mistrial at that time, but he didn't do that either. And we heard no discussion on that topic at all.