No-Defense Theory?

[Mingnon]

This is from the video 'This Man Served 10 Years in Prison, Now He’s A Defense Lawyer':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOyBjPpO2sQ

"My lawyer convinced my family and I that a no-defense theory was the best theory of defense. It was a horrible idea, and that defense contributed to me being found guilty."

His story is quite compelling to listen to. Though the no-defense theory has me confused; what is it and why is it such a bad idea? Anyone who can elaborate on this will be much appreciated.

[Regina Minx]

This is me reading between the lines a little bit, but what I think he's saying that his attorney offered no defense at trial. This can be a valid defense theory, since the State is required to prove the guilt of the defendant beyond a reasonable doubt, the defense side never needs to open its mouth at all. Sometimes, a case is so weak, and the evidence entirely circumstantial, that the defense may simply decide to rest after the State’s case without presenting a defense and count on the judge or jury to realize that the State has failed in its burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Naturally, if the jury doesn't think that the case is weak or entirely circumstantial, this can be a bad strategy because the side of the story being told is the State's, and a jury may well decide to convict on the basis of "well someone must have done it."

[Oniya]

I used to watch a lot of televised trials when I was able to.  Regina's got it pretty much summed up.

In any trial, the burden of proof is on the prosecution: you are innocent until proven guilty.  The 'tactic' in a 'no-defense' case is that the defense attorney does all of their work on cross-examinations of prosecution witnesses, trying to ensure that the jury has 'reasonable doubt'.  (While it wasn't a lawyer doing it, the character played by Henry Fonda in 12 Angry Men uses this tactic very effectively.)

The inherent danger in this is that 1) the jury might not be convinced, and 2) once the defense rests, the prosecution goes into closing arguments - there is no rebuttal phase.