At every criminal trial the defense has to decide whether or not the defendant should testify. Many criminal defense attorneys take the position the defendant should not testify unless it's a must. But most juries want to hear the defendant testify.
Part of this fear is the prosecutor will tear the defendant apart on the stand. In my experience if the defendant has a coherent story, then the prosecutor is not able to break down the defendant during cross-examination. For these reasons I have a presumption the defendant testifies at trial, unless there is a reason for him not to testify.
EXAMPLES OF OVERCOMING THE PRESUMPTION THE DEFENDANT TESTIFIES
- There isn’t a coherent defense.
- The state has already introduced the defendant's side of the story into evidence.
- The defendant’s testimony is irrelevant to his defense.
- The defendant has trouble speaking, or doesn’t have the mental capacity to give a coherent story.
- The defense attorney believes he has already won the case, and does not want to the defendant to potentially lose the case for him.
- The defendant has too many admissible convictions.
