It's one of the many reasons why a criminal defendant should consider not taking the stand.
Yes! It also shows how the Senate hearing highlights the Fifth Amendment as a two-edged sword:
Criminal defendents are not required to be sworn in and take the stand against their will. Most juries don't hold it against them that they didn't testify on their own behalf--they've seen all the lawyer movies and TV shows, and they know how a prosecutor can rip a witness to shreds. Criminal defendents are almost never hurt by refusing to take the stand.
It took me some time to realize this when I was a young criminal defense lawyer. I kept telling myself that a jury wants to hear a defendant say that he didn't do it. More times than not, a defendant's testimony hurts more than it helps. I learned that juries do not, in fact, hold a defendant's decision not to testify against him. It benefits the most innocent person in the world usually not to testify.
Your comments about taking the fifth reminded me of one of my favorite scenes from
A Man for all Seasons . When Thomas More was brought to Court for refusing to take an Oath recognizing Henry VIII as head of the Church, he countered that a maxim of law in England was that silence meant consent, and that the court should therefore judge his silence with respect to the Oath accordingly.
Cromwell sneered, "Is that how you want the whole world to consider your silence?"
More replied, "The world can judge me however it wants according to its wits. This court must judge me according to law."
