3 ms·

Nor is he required to give an explanation. The prosecutor must prove that possession of the items leads to proof of guilt.

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago
That's true, but I'm not sure what your point is. The prosecutor did prove that, convincing a unanimous jury that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps you're thinking of it as a self-incrimination issue? That's a misperception I've seen before, where people generalize from Fifth Amendment protections to a broad rule that criminal defendants can never be at a disadvantage for refusing to explain themselves. That's not the case. If the prosecution says you obtained some items by taking them from the victim, and that's the only reasonable explanation the jury hears for how you got them, it's 100% within bounds for them to infer it's the correct explanation.
anon291 2y ago
He is not required, but absent an explanation, a jury might think him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. After all, if your husband comes home late at night with lipstick all over him in a drunken stupor and unzipped pants, and then, as you threaten divorce and kick him out of the house, he offers no explanation, you too might think him guilty. Whereas, if he claims to have been assaulted by a very large woman you might listen to him. The 5th amendment protects you from being called as a witness against yourself. That doesn't mean you should not offer the jury testimony in defense of yourself. In general, if you have an alternative explanation for the circumstances which have led to your suspicion, you should offer them up readily.
- gklitz 2y ago
  > He is not required, but absent an explanation, a jury might think him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s just plainly insane. Absence of proof of innocence is not proof guilt. It’s not even suggestive of proof, let alone proof without a resonable doubt!? That would leave half the country with a death sentence because they don’t have reliable affirmative proof that they didn’t commit this murder. Do you remember where you were on the day the murder happened? If you cannot provide proof, we’ll consider you guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.

SpicyLemonZest 2y ago

That's true, but I'm not sure what your point is. The prosecutor did prove that, convincing a unanimous jury that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Perhaps you're thinking of it as a self-incrimination issue? That's a misperception I've seen before, where people generalize from Fifth Amendment protections to a broad rule that criminal defendants can never be at a disadvantage for refusing to explain themselves. That's not the case. If the prosecution says you obtained some items by taking them from the victim, and that's the only reasonable explanation the jury hears for how you got them, it's 100% within bounds for them to infer it's the correct explanation.

anon291 2y ago

He is not required, but absent an explanation, a jury might think him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. After all, if your husband comes home late at night with lipstick all over him in a drunken stupor and unzipped pants, and then, as you threaten divorce and kick him out of the house, he offers no explanation, you too might think him guilty. Whereas, if he claims to have been assaulted by a very large woman you might listen to him. The 5th amendment protects you from being called as a witness against yourself. That doesn't mean you should not offer the jury testimony in defense of yourself. In general, if you have an alternative explanation for the circumstances which have led to your suspicion, you should offer them up readily.

gklitz 2y ago
> He is not required, but absent an explanation, a jury might think him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That’s just plainly insane. Absence of proof of innocence is not proof guilt. It’s not even suggestive of proof, let alone proof without a resonable doubt!? That would leave half the country with a death sentence because they don’t have reliable affirmative proof that they didn’t commit this murder. Do you remember where you were on the day the murder happened? If you cannot provide proof, we’ll consider you guilty of murder beyond reasonable doubt.