Sometimes the conviction rate combines both pleas along with trial convictions. It also combines trials of innocent persons along with trials of people obviously guilty. That makes for a less than accurate picture. Nonetheless, trials are always difficult, risky, and emotionally draining, which is why cases plead out. Trials can be won with or without the defendant taking the stand. It depends on a number of factors, not the least of which would be the strength of the prosecution's evidence.
These are weighty and difficult questions with no "right" or "wrong" answers. You need to be asking these questions of skilled and experienced legal counsel who knows your case inside out and is accountable for the advice given to you. This is not the place for informed advice or guidance on such large concerns. No one on Avvo can possibly have enough information about the specifics of your case -- which will inevitably determine the outcome of your case -- to provide you any reliable answers here.
My responses to questions on Avvo are never intended as legal advice and must not be relied upon as legal advice. I give legal advice only in the course of an attorney-client relationship. Exchange of information through Avvo's Questions forum does not establish an attorney-client relationship with me. That relationship is established only by individual consultation and execution of a written agreement for legal services.
This responds to one of your comments, sepcifically whether juries are skeptical about defendants who don't take the stand. The answer unfortunately is yes, even though the judge instructs them that the defendant does not have to testify or indeed present any case at all. During voir dire I always ask the jury if they will respect the defendant's right not to testify and everyone always says yes. When you ask them the basis for their decision after trial, however, all too often you hear "we never heard the defendant's story..."
What I have seen often in state court but never in federal court is a prosecution failing at trial because the prosecutor is unprepared. You can count on the AUSAs to do their homework, both on the law and on the facts, to recognize the weak points in the Government's case and to anticipate them, and to work hard to corroborate Government witnesses whose credibility is doubtful. Defendants are acquitted in federal court, but counting on a federal prosecutor to be asleep at the switch is not a good strategy for success..