Westerfield attorney's begin defense: Dusek STUNNED by Defense calling for Keith Stone. Barb next?

Union Trib ^ | July 2, 2002 | Union Trib

[the Deejay]

A jury can NEVER hold it against a defendant if they DON'T testify. The judge instructs the jury on this.

[Politicalmom]

Since it is against the law for the jury to hold his not testifying against him, I doubt that. That pesky old
Fifth Amendment thing.

[pyx]

The jury will see his unwillingness to testify on his own behalf as an admission of guilt. He has to testify to save his neck. If he does testify, I'll bet the farm he gets off.

A defendant chosing to testify or chosing not to testify on his or her own behalf should never in any way be construed as an admission or denial of guilt. The defendant in ALL cases MUST be presumed INNOCENT.

[UCANSEE2]

See post 21

[BunnySlippers]

I think they fingered the wrong guy, before they knew EXACTLY what was going on over at the Van Dams home that evening.

Ha! And they say they haven't made up their minds yet!!!

[BunnySlippers]

The defendant in ALL cases MUST be presumed INNOCENT.

Only by the jury ... The general public is not held to the same standard.

[gigi]

I thought they held up well on cross also. I didn't get to see all Damon and the gang testify, I did see a little of Brenda and some of her girlfriend on replays on CTV. I'm in the process of reading the PH testimony. It also bothers me that the judge won't let evidence about the VD's come in. I think their lifestyle is revelant to the kind of people that were around them. I wonder what the jury thought about the abrupt stop of the testimony of the officer today. I know what I'd be thinking, & thats what are they hiding?

[UCANSEE2]

I don't understand this,

That's OK,fatima, the rest of us are just as confused as you are. We don't understand exactly why the police locked onto one suspect, arrested that person before test results were even back, and failed to investigate any leads that did not support their one suspect.

[Donzerly lights]

Yes, Feldman should remind the jurors of every misleading statement and unfulfulled promise Dusek made. I'm wondering what the heck Dusek was thinking when he wrote that opening. Was forensic evidence still at the lab and the prosecution didn't get the results they EXPECTED?

I think the ruling in MA was that opening and closing statements are not evidence, and the jury is only allowed to consider evidence while deliberating.

[luvbach1]

If he doesn't testify, he will get the chair.

If he does testify he will get the chair (actually a choice of lethal injection or the gas chamber).

[BunnySlippers]

Judge Mudd might say "enough of this crap...you misled the jury, Dusek"...and I might turn into the tooth fairy this evening..

I'm waiting to see Feldman and his bug guy. Yeah, the bug guy probably will say that the body MAY HAVE been dumped later. But it sounds like it is not altogether certain that the body COULD NOT have been dumped earlier.

Sure looks like LE got their man.

[fatima]

Humm,they are really sure they have their man,the DA and police to go out on the line like that,thank you for your answers.

[BunnySlippers]

and failed to investigate any leads that did not support their one suspect.

What proof do you have of this?

[AppyPappy]

A jury can NEVER hold it against a defendant if they DON'T testify. The judge instructs the jury on this.

Yeah. Sure. That's nice. That means a lot. Except the testimony that is NOT presented by the defendent is NEVER heard by the jury. The judge tells the jury not to act on things they did not hear. Since the jury did not hear the defendent nullify the prosecution's evidence, they had to accept the prosecution's evidence without rebuttal. I've served on a 1st degree murder trial. All we had was the prosecution's evidence. The defense never said a word.

If Westerfield testifies that he went on a trip and never saw the girl, the jury will have to act on that. Combine that with the flimsy prosecution evidence and he walks.

[spectre]

Well, I patiently listened to the Prosecutions sorry case against DW. So we'll ALL just have to wait and see what Team Feldman proves...We wait.

sw

[UCANSEE2]

The jury will see his unwillingness to testify on his own behalf as an admission of guilt

I have to disagree. What does he need to testify about? What can he testify to?

He already cooperated with the police and where did that get him? The arrested him because he was cooperative.

His statements have been gone over and over in court and compared to various witnesses testimony as to their truth and accuracy.

If he is not guilty, then he knows nothing about Danielle's disappearance, so what can he testify to ??????? If you can answer that, I might accept your statement. It is usually the stance of the Defense lawyers to not have their client testify. It is a matter of law that you can not be compelled to testify against yourself.

[AppyPappy]

If he does testify he will get the chair (actually a choice of lethal injection or the gas chamber).

No way. The evidence is not sufficient to convict him if he fights it. Not in the jury's eyes.

[nycgal]

Is the DA allowed to do that,say they will show and not show?

The defense can bring that up during their closing statement.

[UCANSEE2]

I agree. But there is more. I believe the LEO's were caught between the VD's LIES, Diane Halfman's directions, and the DA's need for a quick arrest to assure his re-election bid.

[spectre]

Yes..

Night all...tommorrow.

sw