The Jussie Smollett story was objectively funny from the very beginning. Obviously, it’s a prime exhibit of confirmation bias and motivated reasoning. For whatever reason, people wanted to believe that there were MAGA gangs roving Chicago in negative degree weather, carrying rope and bleach, hoping to maybe run into D-list celebrities at 2AM. Who knew.
If defendants have the right to lie, wouldn't that lower the weight of all defendant statements as evidence? Wouldn't it hurt the ability of truthful defendants to be believed?
I feel like it would be better to impose harsh restrictions on when a defendant can be convicted for perjury, making sure that it only happens in cases that can be proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt" or to a similar standard, and force the prosecution to bear all costs for any charge they make that doesn't result in a conviction.
Maybe. Defendants taking the stand is almost always a terrible idea, for many reasons. If my proposed change was fully adopted into law, I wouldn't expect a material impact from juries collectively second-guessing a defendant's testimony.
If a convicted defendant maintains their innocence during allocution, can the prosecutor charge that defendant with perjury?
If defendants have the right to lie, wouldn't that lower the weight of all defendant statements as evidence? Wouldn't it hurt the ability of truthful defendants to be believed?
I feel like it would be better to impose harsh restrictions on when a defendant can be convicted for perjury, making sure that it only happens in cases that can be proven "beyond a shadow of a doubt" or to a similar standard, and force the prosecution to bear all costs for any charge they make that doesn't result in a conviction.
Maybe. Defendants taking the stand is almost always a terrible idea, for many reasons. If my proposed change was fully adopted into law, I wouldn't expect a material impact from juries collectively second-guessing a defendant's testimony.