"Safavian and his lawyers decided this week not to put on a defense, ending their case without calling a single witness or without Safavian testifying."

That's odd. Any deets as to why?

-AF
Andrew Sullivan Is A Fraud

Safavian's retrial was ordered on June 17, 2008. In the middle of a Presidential election, when outcome was not clear.

Maybe he thought he might have some wiggle room if the other candidate had won?

Sure looks to me that this conviction is just in time for him to get a pardon. Probably why they didn't want to waste time bringing up witnesses or have him testify. It would have delayed the conviction. Now, I wonder if Bushie can pardon him before his sentencing.

In response to AF's question -- As a general strategy, it's often a good defense counsel move to rest on the prosecution's case, as opposed to putting on an elaborate affirmative defense case. If the defense believes the prosecution's evidence has failed to prove an element of the crime, it's best to stop the evidence at that point and give it to the jury. Many times if the defendant puts on witnesses, this just fills in gaps in the prosecution's case.

Contrary to TV portrayals, skilled defense counsel do not always have to put on a Perry Mason affirmative defense. (Nor do they have to endlessly and angrily cross-examine every witness; some of the best crosses are short and simply point out that the testimony was irrelevant, and some witnesses do not need to be crossed at all.) A mark of an inexperienced defense counsel is putting on long, rambling affirmative defenses. A sign of desparation is when the defendant takes the stand and testifies: it's almost always best for the defendant not to testify.

Despite the burden of proof being on the prosecution, in practice juries will shift that burden somewhat when the defendant puts on an affirmative defense. Only when the defendant rests on the prosecution's case do juries really put the burden solely on the government.

A lot of cases have resulted in defense verdicts when the defense also rested after the prosecution closed its case. Even if the jury convicts, it also tends to make a better record for appeal issues (though that in itself is not a reason to rest on the prosecution's case).

Another reason not to have the defendant testify: he's guilty, and his sentencing after the subsequentn conviction will be harsher if he takes the stand and lies.

Who knows what Safavian and his lawyers were thinking - I certainly didn't follow the case at all -- but it's a valid tactic/strategy.