@Leimonis: Canadian law has no 'fifth amendment', whereby an accused may refuse to answer questions in court which might result in self incrimination.
Rather than have the defendant testify, the most common tactics are to have the defence counsel attempt to discredit or create reasonable doubt in cross examination of prosecution witnesses, to determine if prosecution evidence was properly obtained, or whether the evidence is conclusive.
Whether or not a defendant should testify depends on the extent of physical evidence and undisputed facts in evidence. In the Masterson case, it appears to me that the prosecution case was based primarily on the testimony of the alleged victims, which the jury considered to be reliable. In the absence of corroborating physical evidence, of which I am unaware, it is my opinion that their testimonies, in and of themselves, should be insufficient for a guilty verdict.
In some cases, a defence attorney will defend a client whom they know to be guilty, either to try to obtain an acquittal based on procedural errors, or to ensure that the accused does not receive improper counsel, which could result in a retrial on create grounds for appeal.
In the OJ Simpson case, Johnnie Cochrane knew that Simpson had arthritis in his hands, which caused swelling if he did not take prescription medicine. Cochrane told Simpson to not take his meds prior to the day in court when the evidence glove was found to be too small for Simpson's hand.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(749x0:751x2)/Danny-Masterson-court-20200918_25-9505447f2d5e41b1a550782f526d7e44.jpg)
Therefore, I won't argue anymore.
