If You were on the Jury, would you convict if defendent did not testify?

I've noticed most times when defendents' do not testify in court they are found guilty by juries. Would you have doubt of a defendent's innocence if he or she did not testify?
Answers:
Defendants who do not testify on their own behalf are either a) deemed as being "bad witnesses" or b) have something to hide or c) may open a line of questioning their attorneys don't want opened.
I don't think juries base their judgment on that - they have the facts of the case and the testimony provided by everyone that does testify. Juries are instructed to base decisions on evidence provided - not evidence not provided.
I wouldn't consider it at all. And I have served on a jury.

---

I won't because you should look at the evidence. I mean if i was on trial i might not want to testify because I'm not a great public speaker.

---

The defendant rarely testifies.
You should convict or acquit based on the facts brought forth in the trial. To convict based on whether or not the defendant testifies or not is completely contrary to our judicial system.

---

hear their side

---

depends on the case and situation.

---

Nope, but then I understand that the defendant does not have to testify and in fact, may do more harm than good even if they are innocent.

---

You shouldn't even GET on a jury if you have that belief. A competent attorney will question you about your understanding and belief in various constitutional protections a defendant has, including the right not to testify and the fact that you are not to infer anything about guilt or innocence based on whether he does or not. If you don't answer "right" your outta there!

---

Most defendants don't usually testify. This would open the grounds to any type of questions being asked and any attorney could easily turn their answer into something else.
I would have to hear all the facts and testimonies before i could convict someone. Everyone deserves a fair trial.

---

they are protected by law and do not have to testify. That would not affect my decision one way or the other.

---

That wouldn't bother me, but the line of defense had better boil down to "He didn't do it", and not "The police screwed up".

---

just because the defendant doesn't testify doesn't make them guilty. a defendant who will fall apart under pressure, or who gets confused easily, or has any sort of flaw that will make them look bad on cross-examination, is unlikely to be put on the stand because of the risk of damage to their case. and actually the majority of all defendants are found guilty, i don't think that their is much correlation between whether or not the defendant testifies

---

If a defendant did not testify in his own case and got away with it, then every criminal will get away with crime.
Sounds like someone who is really guilty and his conscious is catching up with him.
After all, if you didn't commit the crime, what do you have to hide?

---

At the end of the trial, the jury receives a special instruction that it may NOT draw any inferences from the defendant's failure to testify. To do so would violate the defendant's constitutional right against self-incrimination.
Many criminals defendants do want to testify, but their attorneys elect otherwise as a matter of strategy. A defendant who testifies on his own behalf does so at the cost of waiving his constitutional right against self-incrimination, and opening himself up to a cross-examination by the prosecutor. It's easy to say that a person who has nothing to hide should answer anything the prosecutor asks without a problem -- but unless you've cross-examined someone or been under a cross-examination yourself, you have no idea how damaging it is even to an innocent person. Even an innocent person can be completely demolished by a skilled prosecutor. This is one of the most difficult experiences anyone can face. Given the fact that most people who get accused of crimes aren't terribly bright or educated, and most people in general can't control their emotions under fire, opening yourself up to full frontal assault in a courtroom isn't a good idea. That's the reason the Framers enacted the right against self-incrimination into the Bill of Rights in the first place.