Does the attorney testimony rule apply to a non-jury trial?

The court also recognized that "[o]ne of the strongest rationales for this lawyer-witness rule is to prevent jury confusion over the separate roles of an advocate and a witness." Id. The court focused on the fact that any habeas proceedings would not be heard by a jury and "the rule should not apply to non-jury proceedings." Id. at 5. However, in concluding, the court also noted that the attorney was not likely to be a witness. Id. See also Crowe v. Smith, 151 F.3d 217, 233-34 (5th Cir. 1998) (noting that "the only justification for the attorney testimony rule that might be viewed as affecting the rights of the opposing party is that derived from the fear that the jury will either accord such testimony undue weight, or will be unable to distinguish between the attorney's testimony, offered under oath, and his legal argument, offered in rhetorical support of his client's case").