DaveCinzano
WATCH OUT, GEORGE, HE'S GOT A SCREWDRIVER!
I've been in a court room when a defence brief has put forward patently untrue (and easily checkable) statements which neither police, prosecution or judge picked up on, but which appeared plausible because the defendants didn't give testimony in which they would likely have flaked out or contradicted each other. [Not saying the lawyer knowingly put forward false statements as fact.]It's more nuanced than that. Some people would be terrible witnesses and their legal advisers try and keep them away from the witness box. Some people are guilty and shouldn't give evidence unless they are a very accomplished liar.
But others just get flustered or can't give simple answers and let their mouth run away from them.
I've seen more than one person destroy their own perfectly truthful and valid position because they're an idiot.
It was balanced out by dodgy prosecution evidence, unreliable prosecution witnesses being picked apart on the stand, evidence of collusion between police (Special Branch) and 'victim' (large death-dealing corporation) etc. Acquittals all round, in large part because the defence case was unified and presented a reasonable narrative from the evidence put forward by the prosecution, and the prosecution case was nebulous and undermined by its own flaky evidence and witnesses.