Posted on 07/10/2013 1:50:43 PM PDT by E. Pluribus Unum
Yes it is the judge's place to ask such a question, and the question is actually posed in order to protect the defendant (and, of course, to protect the judge from being overturned on appeal). Per a Supreme Court decision from the 70's (I believe, can't remember the case off the top of my head), there is a Constitutionally-protected right to testify. While a Defendant may of course waive that right (under the corresponding 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination), under Florida law, "[t]he record must support a finding that such a waiver was knowingly, voluntarily, and intelligently made." Reynolds v. State, 99 So. 3d 459 (Fl. 2012).
Indeed, contrary to your assertion that it is improper for a judge to ask, the Florida Supreme Court has written that "[a]lthough a trial court does not have an affirmative duty to make a record inquiry concerning a defendant's waiver of the right to testify, it would be advisable for the trial court to make a record inquiry as to whether the defendant understands he has a right to testify." Id.
I’m doing my best to be optimistic!
Ah Florideuhh. Were it's legal to starve someone to death, with republicans approval.
Seriously, good for you. I just can’t go there. Luckily, it doesn’t matter what I think.
Toss Marco Rubio into that mix and I have to agree with you. “Good Florida Republican” is an oxymoron.
Isn’t that perfect? And I would never diss Linda...
The Casey Anthony jury was filled with morons who thought that Casey was too pretty to be a murderer..wouldnt be surprised if there were some abortion lovers there who felt bad for Casey, being “forced” to have Caylee(Remember how it was Cindy Anthony who wanted Casey to have the child, Casey wanted to give her up for adoption)..with this jury, I saw their profiles, other than the hispanic woman who loves reality shows I didnt see anything in their profiles which shows they might convict..one of them has a husband who owns a gun and believes that its a person’s right to defend themselves
Ozzie is so out of it that if he watches the trial and sees the judge, he thinks it’s him.
Zim had the exact same rights Skiddles did.
Skiddles violated Zim's civil rights by assaulting him. He threatened Zim's life by smashing his skull against a blunt object.
Skiddles bought a bullet. He earned it!
“Good Florida Republican” is an oxymoron.
You’re forgetting Allen West.
No, he should say nothing at all.
ping
I’m speaking as a woman here, but I’m thinking the only time you’d want to hit that is with a baseball bat!
I consider federal charges very likely if state ones fail.
“Laz, I hereby sentence you to hit it!”
That sentence would be cruel and unusual punishment.
And, there is the undeniable fact that someone has hit her with the Ugly Stick until the ugly went clear through.
How do we know this jury is not filled with morons? They’ve already admitted they know nothing about this terrible case. I don’t want to get fooled again.
What got me was she tried to make him say when he would know if he was going to testify or not. And the trial is not even over yet. She is really something. Can’t wait for the Fox Foxie legalettes to review this.
I can’t guarantee anything, I just hope for the best..whatever happens, the defense was masterful, they could not have done a better job
OK: there were two instances (at different times) when she bugged him. Are you sure you understand this?
She wasn’t found not guilty of murdering her daughter. She was found not guilty of 1st degree murder. The prosecution never did say how they believed she killed her daughter or her intent. It could have been an accident, manslaughter, or 2nd degree murder. The jury didn’t have the opportunity to consider a lesser charge. Without those components, the jury had no choice but to deliver a not guilty verdict.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.