Bonds Trial Update: The Defense is Confident
One of the hallmarks of criminal law is that the prosecution must prove its case against a defendant beyond a reasonable doubt. Criminal juries seem to understand (without penalizing the defendant) that, under our Constitution, a defendant doesn’t have to testify or put on any case because the prosecution has the burden of proof.As a former prosecutor, I can say that in majority of cases I have been involved with the defendant will not testify and will not call any witnesses. There is a very good reason for this strategy.
If Bonds had testified and the jury thought he lied to them, he’s toast. Moreover, if the judge believed the Bonds lied (or truth shaded) in court, she might “bang” him on sentencing and max him out. When the defense elects not to put on a case, this suggests that they are confident of an acquittal.
If the defense team believes that they have damaged the prosecution’s case enough through cross-examination AND now feels that the prosecution cannot meet it's burden of proof, Bonds’ lawyer should not put on a case (which was their choice). In closing arguments, Bonds lawyers must aggressively attack and dismantle the government’s case, like Bonds’ life depended on it - because it does.
My name is Christopher Fusco. I am the managing partner of Callahan & Fusco, LLC with offices in New York, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania.