Thanks. I thought that was the case, but was wondering if there were any repercussions to lying about whether or not you’ll testify.
If the defendant states he will testify and the prosecution structures its case in part based on that promise, and then the defendant says, “Oops! Changed my mind!” the prosecution is just SOL, right?
Why can’t they legitimately change their mind based on how things went?
I agree. A trial is a dynamic process. If defence considers that there are sufficient weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, after the prosecution evidence is all in, they may legitimately decide not to call any evidence, or not to call the accused.
Of course, they can. But then why state “I will testify” instead of “I will likely testify”?
AIUI, if a defendant testifies, they sacrifice any fifth amendment protections with respect to any testimony given: the prosecution may ask an incriminating question in cross-examination, and if it is in bounds, the defendant may not invoke 5A to refuse to answer. This is a major reason defendants are rarely advised testify, because there is quite a lot of lattitude afforded to cross-examination.
Information about the jury consultant the Trump team has been using in this and the Carrol trial.
Because he fully intends to testify at this moment.
If I tell you “I will stop at the market on the way home”, I intend to do it. If there’s a train wreck that blocks the market before I can get there, I will end up not doing it.
Thanks for the clarification, I was trying to wrap my head around how pleading the 5th would work. My understanding of the 5th is that a defendant would basically be saying “answering that question would make me look like I broke the law” but if Trump is already on trial for breaking that law, it would be very circular. I am sure Trump would love it though. But if he thinks telling a jury that he can’t answer questions because the answers will make him look guilty… well, that’s not the great defense he thinks it is.
No, my understanding of the Sandoval hearing is to determine what evidence, if any, is admissible to impeach the defendant’s credibility, should he decide to testify.
I heard a talking head on the television who explained that this is often used strategically by defense counsel to demonstrate to their client the risk of testifying. At the end of the hearing, they can say “if you get on the stand, this is coming in.” It helps with the discussion about the merits of remaining silent.
No. He might have had to express a willingness to testify to get to a Sandoval hearing (I’m not sure), but he absolutely can change his mind. He doesn’t have to decide until it’s the defense’s turn to present a case, after the State rests.
Basically, if you are a criminal defendant, the right is to testify or not. But if you do testify, you’ve waived the right as to any particular question asked.
This is different than other times when you might be required to testify under oath (such as a witness pursuant to a subpoena, or as a litigant in a civil case). In those situations, you can invoke the 5th Amendment as to specific questions that are asked.
The defendant never has the burden of proof as to the elements of the crime. If the prosecution has to rely upon the testimony of the defendant, they don’t have a case.
(But note that the statements of the defendant are usually admissible, so the government will get to introduce what the defendant has said. If the defendant wants to explain or deny those statements, he can try to impeach the accuracy of that testimony. But he also retains the right to get on the stand and speak for himself. And sometimes a defendant is their best witness for their defense).
Thank you for the clarification.
In the same way that he intends to make his tax returns public.
Eh, skimming some research (law firms love to post blogs about various legal issues), I’m pretty sure that donald had to say he was going to testify in order to have the Sandoval hearing.
The hearing is strategic, as the defendant can then rely on the judge’s ruling when deciding to take the stand (unless he opened the door* in his defense case).
For many defendants, this is useful. I’m on trial for drugs; are you allowed to introduce the fact that I had a battery conviction 10 years ago? I’d want to know before I decide whether to testify.
*e.g., If the judge rules that a prior conviction is inadmissible, that doesn’t mean you can get on the stand and say that you’ve never been in trouble before.
I vehemently disagree. Trump has no intent about the future. He is motivated entirely by what he thinks is the most effective and useful thing to say right now. There is zero connection to what he might or might not say or do in the future. He will make that decision when that moment comes.
Right now he believes he needs to be a confident defendant, so he says he will testify. That’s it. There’s nothing else to it.
Whatever. We can’t actually read his mind. You’re probably right but we don’t know. Legally it’s irrelevant.
I’m just saying you can predict precisely nothing about tomorrow based on his words today.
He had to say he was considering testifying. Did he have to say yes I am going to testify?
It’s not a huge deal, but my take is just exhibit 19531 of “Trump is the worst client ever” his lawyers would have preferred him to say the bare minimum is to necessitate the Sandoval hearing but instead he was quite explicit he was going to testify. But I’m not a lawyer in NY or anywhere else.
To me, it is kind of a big deal.
Every time I start to have faith in our judicial system something like this happens. Apparently in some instances when it’s in the defendant’s best interest to willfully lie on the witness stand, he can do so without any repercussions.
That didn’t happen here. Donald hasn’t testified.
All the reporting I see is that he told reporters that he’d testify. This coincided with a legal hearing about what (otherwise extraneous) evidence would be allowed to show that donald is not credible, should he choose to testify.
Some digging tells me that this is something the DA does by putting the defendant on notice of what the DA would seek to use. This is called a Sandoval Notice, and is what triggers the hearing.
So, no, Trump has never said in court whether he’d testify or not. As I expected, this decision is premature.
Though it’s 100% not in Trump’s best interests to be in this Sandoval hearing. This is entirely a problem of his own making due to his dysfunctional narcissism. His best interests would be served by saying “hell no, I’m no going anywhere near the witness stand”
He’s not gaining anything by this (whether or not he actually intends to testify or is lying about it) even if there are no repercussions in the trial, its not some 5D chess move that will gain him an advantage.
Sorry for my layman’s confusion, but I’m not sure of the distinction you seem to be drawing between questions that are “particular” versus “specific.”
Once a defendant takes the stand, did all 5A rights disappear? Or are there still lines of questioning where he could legitimately invoke 5A protection?