Can a defendant testify in his own defense?

and defense counsel did not believe his testimony was a good idea, the defendant's presence on the stand "'would have afforded him the opportunity to have the jury observe his demeanor and judge his veracity firsthand'"]; United States v. Walker (5th Cir. 1985) 772 F.2d 1172, 1178-1179 (Walker) [defendant's "testimony would be of particular interest to the fact finder because he would be testifying as the alleged active participant in the activities which were the focus of the trial"].) Indeed, "[w]here the very point of a trial is to determine whether an individual was involved in criminal activity, the testimony of the individual himself must be considered of prime importance." (Id. at p. 1179.) In short, it is safe to say Flores's own testimony would count as significant evidence for the defense's case.

The People cite to federal cases in arguing the trial court's refusal to reopen the defense case so as to permit Flores to testify was not an abuse of discretion. However, those cases are inapposite given that here the prosecutor had no objection to Flores's requeston the contrary, the prosecutor welcomed it. Our legal system is an adversarial one, whereby any restrictions on a defendant's right to testify must be "justified by countervailing interests." (United States v. Jones (8th Cir. 1989) 880 F.2d 55, 59; see United States v. Blankenship (6th Cir. 1985) 775 F.2d 735, 741 ["The most important consideration is whether the opposing party is prejudiced by reopening."]; United States v. Molinares (11th Cir. 1983) 700 F.2d 647, 652 [trial court properly allowed prosecution to reopen its case to present additional evidence where the ruling caused the defendant no "actual prejudice"].) Here, since the prosecutor had no objection to allowing the defense to reopen in order for Flores to testify, there was no significant countervailing interest to justify restricting Flores's constitutional right to testify in his own defense.

This case is more closely analogous to the situation presented in People v. Solomon (1996) 220 Mich.App. 527, 536 (Solomon). In Solomon, after the defense

Page 14