IANAL but I believe this has been answered above–no, he cannot be compelled to testify against himself. He only becomes fair game on cross if he chooses to testify.
Of course not
I think the prosecution can call him as a witness, but it would be pointless. My impression of Si_Amigo’s post is that if they could do it knowing that he would plead his 5th Amendment protections, just to give the impression of dishonesty to the jury (and maybe get him to start blabbing on his own accord). We’ve seen Trump plead the 5th hundreds of times when he’s in the witness chair, so he probably wouldn’t further incriminate himself. Putting him on the stand for the purpose of showing the jury how guilty his is because he keeps saying he may incriminate himself might be seen as ‘unduly attempting to influence the jury’ and might be grounds for appeal.
No, they cannot. A criminal defendant has an absolute right not to testify under the fifth amendment. Only he can choose to waive that right. Government cannot call him as a witness unless he does so. They can’t even refer to his decision not to testify in the closing arguments (so no saying “ an innocent man would’ve gotten up there and told you his story.“)
There are no hard and fast rules on how to present a case. It’s an art as much as anything else.
So your idea makes sense. You want to leave the jury with the impression that this is ironclad. Finishing up with some unimpeachable witnesses who confirm key details would seem like a really smart strategy.
Pity you didn’t get a chance to explain the meaning of the phrase to Kristi Noem.
I found differing opinions on whether the prosecution can call a defendant to the stand (knowing he will not answer any questions. IANAL.
This is true. They can’t say it. But everyone knows that it’s implied; which is why it would endanger the trial.
Wrong thread.
This post made me wonder if Trump’s previous pleadings of the Fif occurred exclusively in depositions versus live in front of juries. Anyone?
It’s not allowed in a criminal trial.
He could also be compelled to testify in one of his many, many civil trials. But I have no idea if/when he has ever invoked the 5th (as opposed to not remembering).
Regardless, I can say with absolute certainty that this DA will not call donald as a witness in this case.
The question is whether donald will choose to testify. That decision will be one that he announces, on the record, in front of the judge (but outside the presence of the jury) at some point in this case.
He won’t be able to realistically claim that he wasn’t “allowed” to testify - he will be asked to answer the question of what he decides in open court.
(Although his answer will probably be along the lines of “On the advice of counsel l, I am invoking my 5th amendment right not to testify” then complain outside of court that his lawyers wouldn’t let him testify. They are absolutely going to be the scapegoat once he’s convicted).
Allegedly invoked the 5th about 400 times when questioned by Letitia James in the fraud deposition.
For the avoidance of doubt: this is not an exaggeration.
Trump was also forced to reconcile that with having previously bloviated that only a guilty person would plead the 5th. Apparently, pleading the 5th is OK if you’re defending yourself against a “Witch Hunt”! 
Very few people are aware that “pleading the Fifth” actually originated in Salem.
So this weekend attorney Michael Popok said on a Meidas Touch podcast that with the prosecution’s case going as well as it has been, he was growing increasing worried that the defense attorneys could intentionally fall on their sword and do something like repeatedly try to introduce evidence or testimony that the judge has already disallowed…intentionally, so that it will result in a mistrial. The attorneys would get a rap on the knuckles and could be disciplined, but it would allow Trump additional delay, plus it’s unlikely the prosecution could recapture the lightning in a bottle moments before a jury (e.g. Hope Hicks crying on stand because she betrayed her old boss). I’d like to think such a cynical view of what officers of the court could contemplate, but bear in mind who they’re working for in this case.
So I don’t buy this. Trump is not the first rich guy facing a slam dunk case and looking at long prison sentence. If there was a magic cheat code that could get you a mistrial then everyone would do it. Hell, I know I would, even if it meant sacking my lawyers and representing myself.
Strongly agree. The judge will head off any shenanigans.
We may start today with the ruling on the four remaining gag order violations. Don’s managed to toe the line since then in that respect.
Judge Juan Merchan says he has found Trump in contempt for a 10th time.
“I find you in criminal contempt for the 10th time,” the judge says.
“Going forward this court will have to consider a jail sanction,” Merchan says, noting the $1,000 fine is not stopping him.
“The last thing I want to do is put you in jail,” Judge Juan Merchan tells Trump.
Mr. Trump its important you understand the last thing I want to do is put you in jail. You are the former president of the United States and possibly the next president as well," Judge Juan Merchan says.
What a great way to start the week
Trump was looking at Judge Juan Merchan while he was speaking.
“The magnitude of this decision is not lost on me but at the end of the day I have a job to do,” Merchan says. “So as much as I don’t want to impose a jail sanction…I want you to understand that I will if necessary and appropriate.”
“But at the end of the day I have a job to do and part of that job his to protect the dignity of this judicial system,” he says.
Trump just shook his head as they handed down the paper copy of the ruling.
“Your continued willful violations of this court’s lawful order” constitute a “direct attack on the rule of law,” Merchan says.
Next witness is expected to be Jeff McConney, the former controller of the Trump Organization.
He was second in command to Weisselberg and has testified to the Grand Jury for this case. Unlike his boss, he didn’t fight having to give testimony and gave them a lot of information readily.
“Stick with Mr Trump like Allen did, and have multiple trips to Rikers? Or testify fully and frankly as to what I saw? Hmmm. I’ll take Door No 2, thanks.”