Randy Kessler on Court TV to Discuss Whether Trinity Poague Should Have Testified
Randy Kessler joins the Court TV Think Tank to discuss whether Trinity Poague should have testified and the strategic risks of taking the stand.
One of the most debated decisions in any criminal trial is whether a defendant should testify—and the Trinity Poague case has placed that question squarely in the spotlight. The choice not to testify often fuels public speculation, even though it is a constitutionally protected right.
Atlanta divorce attorney Randy Kessler joined the Court TV Think Tank to analyze the legal strategy behind the decision and why silence can sometimes serve the defense better than testimony. Kessler explained that while jurors may expect to hear directly from a defendant, testifying exposes them to cross-examination that can significantly weaken a case.
“Sometimes silence is the most powerful defense,” Kessler noted, emphasizing that even well-intentioned answers can be misinterpreted or exploited by opposing counsel. Once on the stand, a defendant loses control over the direction and scope of questioning.
Kessler also addressed the misconception that refusing to testify implies guilt. In reality, defense attorneys often advise against testimony when the prosecution has failed to meet its burden of proof or when the risks of cross-examination outweigh potential benefits.
The Trinity Poague case illustrates how strategic restraint can be as important as assertive defense tactics. Ultimately, the decision to testify—or not—can shape how a jury interprets the entire case, making it one of the most consequential choices in trial strategy.