[martin_fierro]

Kernell's attorney, Wade Davies, said Monday morning that Kernell won't testify and that the defense has rested its case after only putting one witness on the stand Friday, an FBI agent who said Kernell had been emotionally upset.

In my experience:

• Defense counsel is so confident in the strength of his defense that he sees no need to have his client testify in his own defense; and/or
• Defense counsel is incompetent (relevance of an FBI agent testifying to defendant's emotional state = 0)

[definitelynotaliberal]

I find Kernell’s body language quite telling. I think that his atty. has advised him that, no matter what, it’s not going to turn out well. He really looks despondent in the pictures.

[PUGACHEV]

Not putting the defendant on is a calculated risk. You have to weigh the damage his testimony may do against what the prosecution has already put into evidence. What many people do not understand is that if you begin to testify about a certain subject, you lose your right to refuse to testify later on that subject under the 5th Amendment when you are cross-examined. If you are reasonably sure that having your client testify will open up the door for the prosecution to ask questions you would rather not have your client answer, then you must consider not putting him on. The obvious problem is that, despite the fact that the court will advise the jury that no inference can be drawn in a criminal case if the defendant chooses not to testify, only an idiot would believe that the jury is going to take that admonition seriously.

[Tijeras_Slim]

In my experience:

Barrister Fierro...