Click download link to download full text.
Description: Criminal defendants are under no obligation to testify on their own behalf and doing so can lead to deleterious outcomes. Specifically, if the defendant has a criminal record, the prosecution can introduce this into evidence in an effort to impeach the defendant's testimony. Yet, failure to take the stand and proclaim one's innocence arouses suspicion among jurors that may influence verdicts. In this study, we manipulated whether the defendant testified or not. In those instances where he did testify, we varied whether he had (1) no criminal record, (2) a criminal record for a similar offense, or (3) a criminal record for a dissimilar offense. Results indicated that mock jurors who adjudicated the defendant guilty were influenced by the defendant's failure to take the stand. Furthermore, mock jurors were more likely to render guilty verdicts when they perceived the defendant as less trustworthy, more aggressive, and less credible (as a witness). However, in no instance were these decisions and perceptions related to the manipulations. This suggests that mock jurors were suspicious of the defendant regardless of whether or not he testified, or whether he had a criminal record.
Suggested Citation:
Jones, S., & Harrison, M. (2009). To testify or not to testify-that is the question: Comparing the advantages and disadvantages of testifying across situations [Electronic Version]. Applied Psychology in Criminal Justice,
5(2), 165-181.
Keywords: criminal testimony; Fifth Amendment; remaining silent; mock juror decision making
Date: Sep 23, 2009 | File Size: 340.12 Kb | Downloads: 1898