To testify or not to testify, that is the question!

[FastLearner]

What is the name of your state?What is the name of your state? FL

I just read an interesting post by a fellow who sounded like he had lots of experience in the courts (perhaps a lawyer). He was recommending not to testify; that there is nothing you can add in your testimony that can't be brought out in cross.

Let's suppose one is a very skillful cross-examiner. How is it possible to introduce evidence that the officer hasn't introduced him/herself?

Curious.

 

[sukharev]

Look, if you have nothing to hide, you should testify. This is the best way to create reasonable doubt.

 

[Two Bit]

The problem is that it opens the defendant up to cross examination.

The way you elcit information from the officer on the stand is by asking him questions about the facts that you want to emphsize as opposed to the facts that the state wants to emphsize.

For instance, "Officer, do you recall the blue car that was passing me at the time I crested the hill and came into your field of view?" "Is it possible that it was the vehilce your radar detected?" "Isn't it true that the beam of the radar is cone, in which many vehicles could have been in at the time you say that it registered my speed?" "Officer, isn't it true that the speed limit sign for that 45 mile an hour zone was knocked down?" "Officer, didn't you initally say that I was only going 49 miles an hour, but on the citation you wrote 53 mph?" etc.

 

[sukharev]

And what's wrong with cross-examination? DA does not know any details of the stop, so his only question would be: "What was your speed before the stop?" It's then your choice, whether to say what it was, or say "I don't know", both of which are valid, correct answers.

 

[FastLearner]

And what's wrong with cross-examination? DA does not know any details of the stop, so his only question would be: "What was your speed before the stop?" It's then your choice, whether to say what it was, or say "I don't know", both of which are valid, correct answers.

Not quite.

If the defendant does not testify *then* "the DA does not know any details of the stop".

However if the defendent testifies and gets in all of his/her key points (why else would you testify?) then the DA is free to try to pick them apart or downplay them.

 

[sukharev]

Defendant's only key point is: "I did not speed". You could add description of the car, number of passengers (age, sex), what you were wearing, road conditions, etc. But all of that is just dressing on the cake, to prove you have independent recollection and are a credible witness (and the officer is not).

I had one trial where I completely took apart the officer's testimony, showed that he did not have independent recollection, objected and motioned for dismissal, and still was found guilty. The main reason was (as the judge explained later) that I did not testify, so he did not have any alternative version of facts to weigh against. Offering alternative is much more powerful than casting doubt on government witness testimony.