Quote:
if the prosecution is allowed to make the argument in its closing (which is AFTER the defense's);
then the jury will go into deliberation having freshly been told by the prosecution that the follow itself constitutes initiating a fight, without instruction from the judge that this is not so under the law.
|
My state uses "bare bones" jury instructions and it is generally improper for a judge to instruct on anything but the elements of the crime, elements of any defense (self-defense, for example), definitions and a couple of miscellaneous instructions (presumption of innocence, etc.). If Florida is the same way, the judge properly refused to instruct as the defense instructed. The prosecutor can point out that Zimmerman followed Martin and argue he was was looking for trouble. She cannot, however, misstate the law. That is objectionable.
Added: As Frank Ettin mentioned, many judges will ask a defendant personally if he or she wants to testify. Some portions of the trial are solely in the hands of the defendant's attorney. The right to testify is a right that is personal to the defendant. There have been more than a few defendants who were convicted and then later claimed they didn't know they could testify or their attorney told them they could not testify. The judge was cutting this claim off.