Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search
 

Vattel

(9,289 posts)
37. I doubt that he will improve his chances of acquital by not testifying.
Tue Aug 19, 2014, 07:53 PM
Aug 2014

He has got to contradict the eye witnesses. Tiffany (can't remember her last name) is an extremely credible witness. Her testimony alone will be tough to overcome. It's corroboration by other witnesses puts Wilson very much on the defensive. I am not sure what eye witnesses he can dig up to support his story, but he will probably want to testify himself.

Of course he won't. No one has to testify against him/herself. WillowTree Aug 2014 #1
Crickets Boom Sound 416 Aug 2014 #6
ok wise asses. eveybody is missing the point im trying Solomon Aug 2014 #55
You can't compel testimony exboyfil Aug 2014 #2
If it's a criminal trial - that's how it works. hatrack Aug 2014 #3
It may be better that he doesn't. avebury Aug 2014 #4
Will Wilson even be charged? earthside Aug 2014 #5
Doubtful. eom MohRokTah Aug 2014 #12
He won't be charged Bettie Aug 2014 #22
He will be charged without a doubt. P.S. Z. was charged and tried. WinkyDink Aug 2014 #48
GD what a stupid thread .. ever heard of the FIFTH AMENDMENT? privilege against self-incrimination? MikeW Aug 2014 #7
He shouldn't have to testify. NaturalHigh Aug 2014 #8
I think it was in the first Harry Potter book. DesMoinesDem Aug 2014 #13
I never read any of those, but I had a Civics textbook. NaturalHigh Aug 2014 #16
I didn't know they taught Harry Potter in civics class. DesMoinesDem Aug 2014 #30
I'm guessing this country has a serious shortage of civics textbooks. FSogol Aug 2014 #36
So...are you proposing we suspend/repeal the 5th Amendment? tritsofme Aug 2014 #9
Lol. You forgot the sarc tag yeoman6987 Aug 2014 #10
the situation will be different at the civil trial nt msongs Aug 2014 #11
Well nobody likes to be forced to testify, they even have a name for it Rex Aug 2014 #14
Do you mean to say he won't have to answer questions? leftstreet Aug 2014 #15
This thread makes my head hurt. n/t X_Digger Aug 2014 #17
LOL, me too. How do people come up with this stuff? nt Logical Aug 2014 #19
I have no idea. Every cop show, lawyer show, and courtroom show has said Nay Aug 2014 #54
+100 nt Logical Aug 2014 #67
you have people on this democratic site calling brown a thug JI7 Aug 2014 #18
Link to someone calling him a "thug" here? cwydro Aug 2014 #20
You accused him of "thuggish behavior" Bjorn Against Aug 2014 #28
not having to testify is a right, but the question is would he want to? 0rganism Aug 2014 #21
thank you Quayblue Aug 2014 #25
Perhaps a little torture Lurker Deluxe Aug 2014 #23
it should be like the military ncjustice80 Aug 2014 #24
No, it shouldn't. Terrible idea. We should expand civil rights, not contract them. Shrike47 Aug 2014 #26
Perhaps... ncjustice80 Aug 2014 #29
+1 million Louisiana1976 Aug 2014 #62
Why not some others too. Lurker Deluxe Aug 2014 #27
What? The? Hell? WinkyDink Aug 2014 #51
Not many rights are given up SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2014 #60
Members of the Military don't lose their 4A or 5A rights during a court martial. IronGate Aug 2014 #70
That is an incredibly bad idea. NaturalHigh Aug 2014 #71
His written report should be admissible... HooptieWagon Aug 2014 #31
Yeah, where the hell is the incident report? It's been TEN freaking days now. kath Aug 2014 #47
Excellent point. Louisiana1976 Aug 2014 #63
He should be compelled to testify as a public servant performing his duty XRubicon Aug 2014 #32
No. No he should not. Glassunion Aug 2014 #40
Yes, yes he should. XRubicon Aug 2014 #58
Are you new to this country? WinkyDink Aug 2014 #44
No, you? XRubicon Aug 2014 #56
Good info!!! ncjustice80 Aug 2014 #65
I don't think they can force him if he is a defendant on trial XRubicon Aug 2014 #66
Because SickOfTheOnePct Aug 2014 #72
You sould get a copy of the constitution and head over to the NSA XRubicon Aug 2014 #73
Congressional testimony is not a criminal case. Glassunion Aug 2014 #74
Well, in a civil trial he would be. Read more about law stuff. n-t Logical Aug 2014 #68
Probably not but I think this is different. More witnesses on the prosecution side and some good jwirr Aug 2014 #33
Other than the protests this is following the Zimmerman game plan....... wandy Aug 2014 #34
Not believing black eye witnesses is infuriating... JPnoodleman Aug 2014 #35
Is "infuriating" the Word of the Day? WinkyDink Aug 2014 #45
I doubt that he will improve his chances of acquital by not testifying. Vattel Aug 2014 #37
See: Simpson, O.J. WinkyDink Aug 2014 #46
OJ had no eyewitness testimony against him. Vattel Aug 2014 #49
True. WinkyDink Aug 2014 #53
You should read this. Bolded the important bit. Glassunion Aug 2014 #38
The Fifth Amendment protects us from having to MineralMan Aug 2014 #39
That pesky 5th Amendment (nt) Recursion Aug 2014 #41
Where is this video of Wilson walking around the body? pintobean Aug 2014 #42
Defendants need not take the stand. US Jurisprudence 101. WinkyDink Aug 2014 #43
The DA (the People) has the burden of proving that he's guilty beyond a reasonable doubt aint_no_life_nowhere Aug 2014 #50
I guess only long-time DU'ers know their Rights. Heh. WinkyDink Aug 2014 #52
Wilson has disappeared. GeorgeGist Aug 2014 #57
Don't they teach Civics anymore? badtoworse Aug 2014 #59
"These assholes always get away..." hexola Aug 2014 #61
I'm astonished that Zimmerman is still walking around. Jester Messiah Aug 2014 #64
the video of him walking around is going to be very very very important as this progresses. xiamiam Aug 2014 #69
Latest Discussions»General Discussion»Here We Go Again. Just L...»Reply #37