General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Here We Go Again. Just Like With Zimmerman. Wilson Won' t Have to Testify. [View all]0rganism
(23,856 posts)it's a defense decision.
much of the time, it's pretty standard for the defense to examine and allow cross-examination of the defendant, if the defense is confident in the defendant's innocence and capability to represent that innocence to the jury. When the defendant doesn't testify, that's a sign that the defense believes the defendant's testimony would do more harm than good to their case, which i take to mean either (a) the defense is so strong that they have no doubt they can win even without defendant testimony or (b) the defense has a problem that the defendant's presence on the stand would only exacerbate (e.g. can't tell a consistent story, looks and sounds exactly like Hannibal Lecter, etc.). now police are commonly regarded with a certain amount of respect right off the bat, and this is far from a clear-cut case in the defense's favor, so if Ofcr Wilson didn't testify i'd regard that as an indication of a serious weakness in his competence as a witness on his own behalf.