Also known as: defendants right to testify · defendant right to testify · right to testify · defendant's testimony right · right to take the stand
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A constitutional protection that permits a criminal defendant to take the stand and give testimony in their own defense. Evidentiary rules may not arbitrarily or disproportionately bar the defendant from exercising this protection.
Diane Dawson faces trial for arson. After hypnosis sessions to address insomnia, she recalls that an office assistant accidentally started the fire. The trial court applies a categorical bar on all hypnotically influenced testimony. The court must permit Diane to testify about her refreshed memory because a per se exclusion would violate her constitutional protection.
Darius Dixon and his codefendant both want to testify at their joint trial. Their appointed counsel informs the court of a potential conflict because each plans to blame the other. The court refuses separate counsel and tells the lawyer to proceed. Darius retains the ability to take the stand despite the joint representation issue.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Diana Delgado is tried for embezzlement. The prosecutor highlights her failure to explain certain bank records during the state's case. The trial court allows the comment and instructs the jury it may draw an adverse inference. The ruling implicates whether the protection against compelled testimony extends to barring such remarks.
Destiny Davis stands trial for fraud while her competence is disputed. One expert finds her unable to assist counsel. Another finds her competent. The court instructs the jury to presume competence. The outcome determines whether Destiny can exercise her protection by testifying in her own defense.
David Dawson seeks to reopen his conviction after a new decision recognizes broader testimonial protections. The lower court denies the motion because the decision came after his trial became final. The ruling tests whether the protection applies retroactively on collateral review.
Denise Donovan wants to testify about events she witnessed at a bar. The state court applies a local rule that bars testimony from any witness who discussed the events with counsel after an initial interview. The appellate court must decide whether the rule unduly restricts her constitutional protection.
No. Federal rules permit exclusion of undisclosed alibi witnesses when the defendant fails to comply with a proper government request. The protection nevertheless preserves the defendant's personal ability to testify about the alibi.
Supporting sources
No. A categorical bar on hypnotically refreshed testimony, including the defendant's own, violates the constitutional protection because it prevents case-specific reliability assessments.
Supporting sources
Yes. A judge may treat perjury during the defendant's testimony as relevant to rehabilitation prospects without unconstitutionally burdening the protection.
Supporting sources
…witnesses to include those charged with offenses negatives a presumption against an accused for failure to avail himself of the right to testify in his own defense. 28 U.S.C. § 632; Bruno v. United States , 308 U.S. 287. It was this statute which is interpreted to protect the defendant against comment for his claim of privilege.…