Will Dominique Strauss-Kahn Testify in His Own Defense?

No He Does Not Have to But. . .

[Disclosure Alert:  The Dismal Political Economists is not a lawyer, has never been a lawyer and has never been to law school]

Earlier The Dismal Political Economist commented on the expected severe attack on the victim/witness in the upcoming trial of Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the former head of the IMF who is accused of sexually assaulting the woman.  We noted that Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers have hired private investigators to research the life of the accuser in order to discredit here, and that she faced what was termed “Judicial Hell”.

The trial of Mr. Strauss-Kahn is being termed a classic “he said – she said” case, since what happened, if anything, is only known to the accuser and Mr. Strauss-Kahn.  We know that the “she said” part of the alleged crime will take place, since the prosecution must put the victim on the witness stand to tell her accusations of assault.

What we do not know is whether or not the “he said” part will take place.  Under the U. S. system of justice, Mr. Strauss-Kahn not only does not have to testify, if he does not testify that fact cannot be presented to the jury as an indication of his guilt.  The burden of proof is entirely on the prosecution.  The defense does not have to prove the innocence of Mr. Strauss-Kahn, it only has to show that the prosecution did not present sufficient evidence that Mr. Strauss-Kahn is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.

Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s defense strategy may be to present no witnesses, not even Mr. Strauss-Kahn. It would make a motion after the prosecution finished its case to dismiss the charges against Mr. Strauss-Kahn on the grounds the prosecution did not prove its case.  The judge would almost certainly deny the motion, after which the defense would rest, and after final arguments the case would go to the jury.

The defense would argue to the jury that the prosecution has failed to prove his guilt. They would use the information brought out in cross examination to discredit the accuser and render her testimony not credible as their main argument.  In fact, this is what The Dismal Political Economist thinks will happen as other than the defendant it is hard to see what any other witnesses the defense could provide that would support his case.

If Mr. Strauss-Kahn does not testify it would spare him the ordeal that his lawyer’s are planning for the accuser, namely the aggressive attack on his character, past accusations against him, previous problems he has had with sexual harassment and all sorts of other highly embarrassing parts of his past.  If Mr. Strauss-Kahn chooses to go the route of not testifying, no one should draw any conclusions about his guilt or innocence based on his refusal to take the stand.  One could, however, reach a conclusion about his character based on a willingness to put a low income, single mother African immigrant though a harsh process that he himself is unwilling to undertake.