Topic: Vetting Potential Jurists

The defendant does not have to prove anything. The state/prosecutor must prove the case; therefore, the defendant never has to testify in court. This is a Constitutional protection (the right to remain silent).
In this situation, the victim testifies that the sex was NOT consensual. There is no physical evidence of resistance. This is not a he said/she said case. She said yes and he said nothing.
Imagine that many times when a weapon is displayed and harm is threatened, victims unwillingly cooperate with their attacker based upon the undue influence of the weapon.
With this in mind, what do you think about the case and its proofs?

You have been selected to be a juror on a rape trial. The victim presented very graphic and compelling testimony that she was raped by the defendant and that she was told by the defendant that if she resisted, she would be killed. The victim also stated that the defendant had a gun when the attack occurred. The prosecution presented DNA evidence that the defendant engaged in sexual activity with the victim but there is little physical evidence to support the victim’s claims that the sex was not consensual (bruising, tearing, cuts, etc.) The defendant has chosen not to testify at trial.
As a juror, what do you think about the defendant’s decision not to testify at trial? Would you want to hear from the defendant during the trial or could you not consider in any way the defendant’s decision not to testify? Make sure to explain your reasoning.

Last Completed Projects