Abstract
Jury trials are supposed to encourage public trust in the criminal legal system while protecting fundamental fairness for the defendant. But how can the public help ensure the fairness of criminal trials when it has no meaningful way to understand the reality of what happens every day in criminal courtrooms across the country? This Article presents findings from an original pilot study—believed to be the first and largest such study—that collected and analyzed court documents and transcripts from seventy-five state criminal trials from one court in one state in one year. It posits that the public’s understanding of the significance of a criminal defendant’s testimony may be distorted and questions its ability to ensure fairness of trials and trust in the legal system when the public—including judges, prosecutors, and defense attorneys—is operating in the dark.
The study found that defendants who testified had better sentencing outcomes compared to those who did not, and they were more likely to be acquitted of their most serious offense and less likely to be sentenced to incarceration. By exploring these findings, the pilot study suggests that greater access to data from state criminal trials is critical to better understanding the significance of criminal defendants’ testimony on trial outcomes. What we don’t know matters because misunderstanding the reality of the decision to testify undermines the right to a fair trial and trust in the criminal legal system.
Recommended Citation
Emily Hughes & Kori Khan,
One Court, One State, One Year: What We Don't Know About Criminal Defendants' Testimony and Why It Matters,
57 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 333
(2024).
Available at: https://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/llr/vol57/iss2/2
