During a trial, there are many decisions that a defendant and their counsel need to make. One of the most important decisions in many trials is whether or not the defendant should take the stand and testify on their own behalf. Many of the aspects of a trial, such as legal strategy and specific arguments to make, are generally the decision of the attorney. However, defendants have an absolute right to take the stand on their own behalf, whether or not their lawyer thinks this is a good plan. If an attorney does not allow the defendant to act as a witness on their own behalf, and the defendant is convicted, under some circumstances, the conviction may be thrown out due to ineffective assistance of counsel. If you are charged with a sex crime in St. Petersburg or the surrounding areas, it is important that you contact a skilled St. Petersburg sex crime attorney as soon as possible to help you craft your legal strategy.Ineffective Assistance of Counsel
In this case, the defendant was charged with lewd or lascivious molestation, unlawful sexual activity with a minor, and capital sexual battery. During the trial, the state presented a witness who had also accused the defendant of sexual abuse. A Florida law called the “Williams” rule allows the trial court to permit evidence leading to the conclusion that the defendant had committed similar crimes in the past. Since there was no physical evidence in the case that was being tried, the testimony of the alleged victim of a similar crime by the defendant was a large part of the state’s case. The victim of the crime with which the defendant was charged testified, but due to his mental disabilities, the other witness’ testimony was considered especially illuminating.
During the trial, the defendant stated that he knew he had a right to testify but chose not to testify. The defendant was later arguing that he had ineffective assistance of counsel because he was not allowed to testify. The trial court denied the post-conviction motion. Here, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals in Florida held that the appropriate rule was two-pronged. The first part was whether the defendant was able to testify if they wanted. The appeals court held that the affirmations made by the defendant during the trial were sufficient to conclude that he was aware of his right to testify and chose not to use it. However, the court here also looked at the second part of the test, which allows a claim for ineffective assistance to go forward if it was unreasonable for the attorney to not let the defendant testify.