I read several articles on this earlier today, as well as listening to a Fox News spread on it. Not once did I see where he denied anything (others denied he did it), nor did I see at any hearing where he actually testified. I can’t say either is absolute — don’t know for sure — but if he didn’t testify, its almost 99.99% certain that he did it.
When you’re charged with fraud and susceptible to a process crime (false statements, etc.), you may not want to testify in order to keep yourself out of further trouble. When you’re charged with murder and you really didn’t do it, can there EVER be a justification to not testify?
Yes, the client is seldom smarter and better educated than the prosecutor. Putting a rambling, semi-literate person with a history of violence on the stand is not likely to exonerate themselves in the eyes of the jury.
Yes, absolutely. The prosecutor could tear someone apart on the stand, even if they are innocent, and make them look like the worst person in the world. To much of a case relies on the "gut feelings" of jurors.
Also, to be blunt, quite often, the defendants, guilty or innocent, in criminal cases, do not have the best backgrounds. This lets the prosecutor have a field day, just teeing off on them. Going back a couple of hundred years, the framers of the constitution realized this even back then, and its part of the reason we have the 5th amendment.