Hey Munda,
The stimulus clearly states that quite often, not testifying would clearly be construed as defendant's guilt by the jury. So, just because not testifying gives a defendant an aura of guilt doesn't mean that actually testifying would serve him better. Even after testifying he is equally likely to be found guilty or not guilty. This is one common trap called
Opposite Answers. Example. To get admitted to HBS one has to give the GMAT. So we can't assume that any Tom, Dick and Harry who gives the GMAT will get into HBS. Similarly, if testifying would do away with possibility of looking extra guilty in the eyes of the jury doesn't mean that if he does testify he is gonna walk away, no questions asked. Hope that clarifies ur doubt.
I was unable to explain!, edited my previos post as well.
