Inside the high-risk decision to testify in your own defense

Criminal defendants often grapple with a pivotal choice at trial: to speak or stay silent. In three recent notable cases, individuals opted to take the stand, aiming to present their version of events. Despite this bold strategy, none of the defendants achieved a not guilty verdict. Brendan Banfield, an ex-IRS officer accused of orchestrating the deaths of his wife and a man through a complex scheme involving the family’s au pair, was convicted of double murder after testifying that he had no role in the plot. Colin Gray, a father from Georgia charged with his son’s deadly actions in a school shooting, was found guilty of murder and manslaughter despite his claims that he lacked prior knowledge of the boy’s violent intentions. Gerhardt Konig, a Hawaii physician accused of attempting to kill his wife during a hiking incident, was convicted of attempted manslaughter following his assertion that she had initiated the attack. While this outcome marked a partial win for Konig, as the jury dismissed a more severe attempted murder charge, all three men now await sentencing.

The perils of self-representation in court

Legal experts caution that testifying in one’s own defense exposes a defendant to intense scrutiny. “I don’t like to do it. I don’t think it’s advisable,” remarked CNN legal analyst and defense attorney Joey Jackson. “It’s troubling and problematic, with pitfalls often outweighing the benefits of having the defendant appear on the witness stand.” Similarly, Elyse Hershon, a Boston-based criminal defense attorney, warned that laypersons on trial are particularly vulnerable to cross-examination. “Exposing your client to questioning by a seasoned prosecutor can be disastrous,” she said. “They’re typically unaccustomed to legal settings, and once they’re on the stand, there’s little a defense lawyer can do to shield them from the heat of the moment.”

When testimony turns the tide

However, there are instances where this strategy yields favorable results. Kyle Rittenhouse, a teenager in the 2021 murder trial, and Robert Durst, in his 2003 murder case, both testified to assert self-defense and were acquitted. Yet, the list of those who took the stand and were later convicted is equally long, including Jodi Arias, former police officer Kim Potter, and South Carolina attorney Alex Murdaugh. The decision ultimately rests with the defendant, as attorneys can advise but cannot override their choice. “You can say, ‘Don’t take the stand,’ but they might still insist,” Hershon noted.

The courtroom’s dual challenge

Testifying involves two phases: the initial direct examination, where the defense attorney guides the defendant through their narrative, and the cross-examination, where prosecutors probe for weaknesses. “The direct part moves quickly—simple and straightforward,” explained Jean Casarez, CNN’s trial correspondent. “But the cross-examination is where the real test begins. A skilled prosecutor will target inconsistencies, challenge emotions, and turn the defendant’s own words into ammunition against them.” Jackson added that self-contradiction on the stand can be a decisive blow. “Any good prosecutor will exploit those moments,” he said. “The pressure is relentless, and the stakes are high.”