[wimpycat]

If I was an innocent person charged with such a heinous crime, I would be shouting my innocence from the rooftops. I would testify in my own defense. Most reasonable people would...if they were innocent. Most reasonable jurors don't hold it against somebody if they don't testify (it's their right not to do so)--but it sure is a big plus in their favor if they do. Westerfield could get up there and talk about how awful it is to be wrongfully accused of such a horrible crime and gain a lot of sympathy.

I served on two juries with a total of 5 defendants. None of them took the stand-their lawyers didn't offer any exculpatory evidence at all. Their whole defense was to poke holes in the state's evidence--unsuccessfully, as it turns out, because they were all convicted.

[bvw]

"Most reasonable people would.."

Overreaching generalization, this serves to impeach your whole point.

[bvw]

"Total of 5 defendants ... they were all convicted."

Mr. Dusek has a theory about what that means, you know.

[AppyPappy]

I think as weak as the evidence is against Westerfield, he could have slammed the lid on it by testifying.

[Jaded]

Gee, they've offered a great deal of exculpatory evidence. As a matter of fact, some of this evidence was brought out by Prosecution witnesses.