October 18, 2011
Why Dr. Conrad Murray shouldn't take the stand
Warum Dr. Conrad Murray nicht in den Zeugenstand treten sollte
Posted: 12:14 PM ET
Commentary by James Walker, a criminal defense attorney based in Atlanta – Special to In SessionAs Dr. Conrad Murray's defense attorneys prepare to present their case and plea for his innocence, the question begs: Should Dr. Murray take the stand and testify?
The short answer: NO!
First, the obvious reason: He doesn't help himself when he opens his mouth. If you recall, Dr. Murray chose to release a self-serving video prior to this trial to exonerate himself or "explain" some things. However, it was clear he is not a good or convincing speaker.
It would only get worse on the stand when you have a prosecutor cross-examine Dr. Murray with the glaring media coverage and 12 jurors hanging on to every syllable he enunciates for what could be two to three days of testimony.
Secondly, as a criminal defense attorney, you generally do not have your client take the stand unless you have a strong feeling that the prosecution did a great job in its case-in-chief and something was said or done by a witness that makes it immediately necessary that a defendant take the stand to counter that presentation.
But, even so, you also weigh the pros and cons of whether his taking the stand to defend himself is outweighed by the potential damage he could do to himself on cross examination along with other aspects of the prosecutor interrogating him for hours. Dr. Murray's approach, demeanor and style would not survive the state's seasoned veteran prosecutors.
Thirdly, he should not testify given the history of high profile defendants who testify and those who do not testify in relation to a jury verdict.
On one hand, you have the famous Bruno Richard Hauptmann case in 1935. Hauptmann took the stand in the first "trial of the Century" when he was charged with murder in the kidnapping of Charles Lindbergh's 18-month-old baby. Hauptmann's confusing testimony did not help him at all. It just gave the 700 media representatives covering the case the chance to review his every word. After the trial, Hauptmann declared his innocence right up until his execution in 1936.
On the other hand, you have the recent Casey Anthony murder trial in the death of her 2-year-old daughter Caylee. Anthony's case galvanized America for months and, in the end, she never took the stand and was acquitted of murder charges and only found guilty of lying to police - a much lesser offense.
And who can forget O.J. Simpson's famous murder trial in the 90s, where he was acquitted of killing his wife and her friend Ronald Goldman. The "Juice" never took the stand. The list goes on and on.
Dr. Murray has already faced a variety of mistresses and girlfriends, his bad credit and financial issues have been exposed and, some could argue, he's been pre-convicted by the media. Dr. Murray can't do anything positive to help his case by testifying.
Even though the prosecution did an excellent job in its presentation, the case is still not clear cut in terms of Dr. Murray's guilt and would most likely see a hung jury right now. So, if you are defense counsel, why put him on the stand to testify?
http://insession.blogs.cnn.com/2011/10/18/why-dr-conrad-murray-shouldnt-take-the-stand/ (Archiv-Version vom 20.10.2011)
... das verantwortungslose Handeln von Murray
