Key Takeaway
Criminal defendants face significant risks when presenting evidence after the prosecution rests, as they may inadvertently cure deficiencies in the state's case.
Understanding the Strategic Risks of Defendant Testimony in Criminal Cases
In criminal proceedings, defendants face a critical strategic decision after the prosecution presents its case: whether to rest or put on their own evidence. This choice carries substantial risks that can dramatically alter the outcome of a trial. A recent New York appellate decision illustrates how defendants can inadvertently strengthen the prosecution’s case by calling their own witnesses.
The concept of “curing deficiencies” in the prosecution’s proof is a fundamental principle in criminal law that every defendant and their counsel must carefully consider. When the prosecution fails to establish all elements of a crime, defendants might assume they’re in a strong position. However, proceeding with their own case can backfire if their evidence fills gaps in the prosecution’s proof.
Jason Tenenbaum’s Analysis:
People v Stone, 2015 NY Slip Op 08205 (3d Dept. 2015)
The defendant cured the deficiencies in Plaintiff’s proof through putting on an affirmative case. The risk of putting on a case is quite apparent here.
“Here, the victim testified to dozens of incidents wherein defendant . The victim’s sister was present for some of those incidents and confirmed that they had occurred. The victim further testified that the bulk of those incidents occurred after she turned six or seven, meaning that they would have occurred no earlier than 2005. Defendant’s current spouse, in turn, testified that defendant was born in 1979, making her well over 18 years of age when the abuse occurred. The fact that defendant called her spouse to testify is of no moment, as “a defendant who does not rest after the court fails to grant a motion to dismiss at the close of the People’s case … proceeds with the risk that he will inadvertently supply a deficiency in the People’s case""
Key Takeaway
Criminal defendants who choose to present evidence after the prosecution rests assume the risk of inadvertently providing crucial information that strengthens the state’s case. Strategic silence may sometimes be the most prudent course when the prosecution has failed to meet its burden of proof on all elements of the charged offense.
