Replies

Well, I used to think there was only one consideration in deciding if a person should testify in his own criminal trial: does he have a record which could be brought up? But it didn't take long to realize that there is that other thing: can this person make a good witness? Is he trainable as a competent witness? Can he be taught to say less, rather than to over-explain, so that he will put his foot in his mouth less? Is he or she arrogant-appearing?

And how does the person dress? Are they insistent on dressing in a "rich" way? I knew of a woman who was like that. SHE wasn't going to be seen in anything "off the rack". EVEN when it was explained to her that, combined with her rather superior demeanor, "rich" clothes would doom her in the eyes of a jury of average people. AND they did, IMO!

I don't think Scott is smart or quick enough to make it on the witness stand. I mean, if the story is true--look how easily Amber got an admission out of him.

Great post.

It's nearly always dangerous for a criminal defendant to testify, but you've listed many of the imprortant factors which must be considered. Another important factor is the strength of the prosecution's case. If it's weak, a defendant's testimony may be a gratuitous risk. On the other hand, if the prosecution's case is overwhelming, the defendant's testimony may be the only remaining hope.

If this case actually gets tried, it'll be interesting to see if Peterson testifies. If he does, the cross-examination is likely to be very brutal very extensive. It will be well worth watching. LOL

Can he be taught to say less, rather than to over-explain, so that he will put his foot in his mouth less? Is he or she arrogant-appearing?

Scott will ham it up like all else he does, and he can't do anything without that arrogant smirk.

And how does the person dress? Are they insistent on dressing in a "rich" way?

You know Scotty will have a well-cut suit and a new haircut.