Jurors in the Katie Foreman murder trial have been told they must not use Bradley Max Rawlinson's decision not to give evidence against him when determining his guilt or innocence.
Rawlinson and a woman, Michelle Sharon Proud, are on trial accused of murdering Ms Foreman by helping to organise for her house to be set on fire in the early hours of October 27, 2011.
Ms Foreman perished in the blaze.
Both accused have pleaded not guilty to murder, however Rawlinson has admitted to manslaughter.
A third co-accused, Proud's partner Bernard Justin Spicer, will face a separate murder trial at a later date, while a fourth woman, Wendy Anne Evans, has already pleaded guilty to murder.
Addressing jurors during the final stages of the case against Rawlinson and Proud on Tuesday, presiding judge Justice Ian Harrison said both Rawlinson and Proud should be presumed innocent by the panel until such time as, or if, they were satisfied "beyond reasonable doubt" that the Crown had proven their guilt.
He said if jurors were not satisfied on the evidence before them that the pair were guilty, then they must be acquitted of the charges.
He told jurors they were not allowed to use Rawlinson's decision not to give evidence before the court against him when making their decision.
"Mr Rawlinson is entitled to say nothing and make the Crown prove his guilt," Justice Harrison said.
"You must not draw any inference or reach any conclusion [on his decision] not to give evidence."
Justice Harrison said jurors must not speculate on what Rawlinson may have said had he taken the stand, or what any potential witnesses in his case may have said if they had been called.
Proud chose to give evidence in her case, spending more than a day in the witness box.
Justice Harrison will continue his summing up on Wednesday.