|
Madigan may testify in own defense (Updated: Madigan takes the stand)
Tuesday, Jan 7, 2025 - Posted by Rich Miller * If you testify in your own defense and are still convicted, that can be used against you in a federal court by increasing your prison time. So, this is risky. But all he has to do is convince one juror. The final decision may depend on whether he can get out of testifying in the forfeiture part of the case…
You can click here and here to follow the Madigan trial online. …Adding… Here we go… 
|
 |
|
|
- Norseman - Tuesday, Jan 7, 25 @ 11:15 am:
Can the Velvet Glove move the jurors? We’ll soon see.
- Homebody - Tuesday, Jan 7, 25 @ 11:15 am:
Given his age, he may be thinking that things are going badly enough in the trial that he has nothing to lose by trying.
- Lincoln Lad - Tuesday, Jan 7, 25 @ 11:27 am:
MJM’s infallibility was proven not to be true through the trust he placed in McClain. It was bad judgment, and this decision may be another example that he isn’t what he once was. Can’t believe his attorneys agree with this decision.
- NIU Grad - Tuesday, Jan 7, 25 @ 11:31 am:
“If you testify in your own defense and are still convicted, that can be used against you in a federal court by increasing your prison time.”
That’s goofy. Our court system is designed to disincentivize people explaining/defending themselves.
Homebody - I saw it as the other way around. If they’re willing to risk this, they have to feel confident that they can take this risk. If they thought he was losing, they wouldn’t gamble with the potential for more prison time.
- low level - Tuesday, Jan 7, 25 @ 11:42 am:
==Collins returns from the sidebar and moves on, asking in part whether Madigan wanted “yes men” on staff.
Willert: “He wanted people who would give him honest advice.”==
Craig is 100% accurate here, as is his description of Madigan’s work ethic. Republicans would acknowledge this as well off line.
- the647 - Tuesday, Jan 7, 25 @ 11:47 am:
I think it makes sense. I’d rather have the jury here from me instead of a bunch of Mike McClain phone calls.
- Excitable Boy - Tuesday, Jan 7, 25 @ 11:47 am:
- asking in part whether Madigan wanted “yes men” on staff. -
No, he wanted them in his caucus.
- Friendly Bob Adams - Tuesday, Jan 7, 25 @ 12:04 pm:
I think Madigan is looking at an easy sentence given his age, and that is playing into the decision to testify.
- Capitol Rotund Duh - Tuesday, Jan 7, 25 @ 12:09 pm:
It would be hilarious if at that critical moment when Madigan begins to rise from his chair to go testify Steve Brown bursts through the court room doors and strides grandly to the witness stand and raises his right hand to be sworn in.
- Steve - Tuesday, Jan 7, 25 @ 12:24 pm:
This is actually a very smart move by Madigan. The fact that 95% of federal trials lead to conviction: Madigan has not to lose and everything to gain. A few jurors actually might like Madigan and think he’s innocent. Most jurors think that defendents are guilty or they wouldn’t be there in court. Most jurors think that if you don’t testify after the prosecution ripped you apart you must be guilty. This is a smart move by Madigan. Many defense attorneys are lazy and don’t want to do extra work by preparing for a defense.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Tuesday, Jan 7, 25 @ 1:07 pm:
One last cryptic press conference for old times’ sake.
- JR - Tuesday, Jan 7, 25 @ 1:31 pm:
It’s widely known that Madigan doesn’t drink alcohol, so he can’t use the old tried-and-true adage of, “I can’t recall since I drank a lot during that timeframe.” That always makes a solid excuse to the jury during testimony.
- Chuddery - Tuesday, Jan 7, 25 @ 1:35 pm:
==Many defense attorneys are lazy and don’t want to do extra work by preparing for a defense.==
That’s not why defendants generally do not testify. Most defendants don’t testify because they’re not as charming as they think and the jurors are going to hate them. They’d also get destroyed on cross with the not great things they’d said or written in the past.
- Rich Miller - Tuesday, Jan 7, 25 @ 1:41 pm:
===It’s widely known that Madigan doesn’t drink alcohol===
LOLOL
- The Honda Lawyer - Tuesday, Jan 7, 25 @ 2:01 pm:
I predict Madigan beats the rap.
- Three Dimensional Checkers - Tuesday, Jan 7, 25 @ 2:18 pm:
You have to admire Madigan’s courage. From the tweets, he seems sympathetic so far. I’m sure he will seem less sympathetic after cross. Still, he’s up on the stand. It might support some jury members who are leaning to acquit.
- This - Tuesday, Jan 7, 25 @ 2:24 pm:
Is he slicing an apple on that stand?
- Leslie K - Tuesday, Jan 7, 25 @ 2:27 pm:
Obviously a tough call, but I think it does make sense as long as he can project his one-on-one self rather than his more carefully crafted public persona. I guess we’ll see…
- JoanP - Tuesday, Jan 7, 25 @ 2:44 pm:
= Many defense attorneys are lazy and don’t want to do extra work by preparing for a defense. =
You do know that it is the defendant’s decision whether or not to testify, not his lawyers’? Of course, lawyers can advise their clients about the decision, but ultimately they cannot control it.
The fact is that I have advised clients to testify who chose not to do so, and have told clients that it would be a mistake to testify, yet they did so anyway (usually with disastrous results).
- @misterjayem - Tuesday, Jan 7, 25 @ 2:49 pm:
“Many defense attorneys are lazy and don’t want to do extra work by preparing for a defense.”
I’ve never met a defense attorney who thought that “preparing for a defense” was extra work — it’s literally THE work.
– MrJM
- Dotnonymous x - Tuesday, Jan 7, 25 @ 3:34 pm:
While the prosecution can use your testimony to argue for a harsher sentence, they cannot punish you solely for exercising your right to testify in your own defense.
The sentencing Judge may consider elements of one’s testimony as to provable inconsistencies and proved lies…any more than that is prejudicial.
- Barbie - Tuesday, Jan 7, 25 @ 5:59 pm:
By all accounts the courtroom and jury are spelll bound. I suddenly wonder if MJM may beat this case and redeem himself in the end. Can you imagine?