>> Scalia seemed pretty clear to me, that he had no such right, nor should he have testified.
No, Scalia did NOT say that. He absolutely did not. He said there was no right (where "right" specifically belongs to the accused) to INSIST on being allowed to testify.
You and other liberals referring to Scalia's remarks do not understand the process. The very same case that is being cited refers repeatedly to the prosecutor's "broad" power to conduct the proceedings as he or she sees fit. But in Berger v. US 295 US 78 (1935) the responsibility of the prosecutor IS subject to a fundamental limitation of seeking justice:
The United States Attorney is the representative not of an ordinary party to a controversy, but of a sovereignty whose obligation to govern impartially is as compelling as its obligation to govern at all, and whose interest, therefore, in a criminal prosecution is not that it shall win a case, but that justice shall be done. As such, he is in a peculiar and very definite sense the servant of the law, the two-fold aim of which is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer. He may prosecute with earnestness and vigor -- indeed, he should do so. But, while he may strike hard blows, he is not at liberty to strike foul ones. It is as much his duty to refrain from improper methods calculated to produce a wrongful conviction as it is to use every legitimate means to bring about a just one.
It is fair to say that the average jury, in a greater or less degree, has confidence that these obligations, which so plainly rest upon the prosecuting attorney, will be faithfully observed. Consequently, improper suggestions, insinuations, and, especially, assertions of personal knowledge are apt to carry much weight against the accused, when they should properly carry none. The court below said that the case against Berger was not strong, and, from a careful examination of the record, we agree. Indeed, the case against Berger, who was convicted only of conspiracy and not of any substantive offense, as were
If, in the opinion of the prosecutor, the testimony of the accused is necessary in pursuit of justice, the prosecutor is OBLIGATED to put on such testimony. It isn't a question of rights of the accused as you have suggested; rather, it is a question of the obligation of the prosecutor. |
