Why Didn't Casey Anthony Testify in Her Own Defense?

In what has become the "Trial of the Century," the defense rested its case in the murder trial of Casey Anthony Thursday afternoon. According to CBS News, they did so without calling what many thought would be their star witness -- the accused herself. In the end, she refused to testify. In the end, it might be in her best interest to have done so, not giving the jury someone to distrust, hurting herself with inadvertent mannerisms, looks, or vocalizations. But not testifying might have helped seal the prosecution's case as well...

Judge Belvin Perry asked her directly if she voluntarily gave up her right to testify on her own behalf. Anthony said she had. Minutes later, the defense rested.

Prosecutors will attempt to build a rebuttal case against the evidence and witness testimony the defense offered in its maneuverings to refute the charge of first degree murder brought by the state. Then there will be closing arguments. Then jury deliberations and a possible verdict.

As with most cases, Anthony's choice not to testify will be seen as a pivotal moment. Should she have testified? Would it have helped? Or did she do the right thing?

According to Brad Conway, an Orlando attorney who once represented George and Cindy Anthony, it potentially undermines part of the defense's case. "He [Jose Baez] made promises to the jury," he told the Orlando Sentinel, "about evidence they would see, and the only person on the planet that could testify about those thing is Casey Anthony," he said.

Conway was referring to the opening arguments in the case made on May 24 by Jose Baez, lead attorney for the defense. Baez shocked the court "appalled" Anthony's parents, who issued a statement afterward through their attorney, by claiming that 2-year-old Caylee Marie Anthony, whom Casey Anthony is accused by the state of murdering, accidentally drowned in the family pool while under the care of her grandfather, George. He went on to say that when Casey discovered him, the two panicked and hid the body. Baez then claimed that his client suffered from emotional issues and was controlled by her family, who blamed her for everything, and that her erratic behavior and lying to police during their missing persons investigation was a result of sustained abuse that began with sexual assaults by her father with she was 8 years old.

On Fox News' "On The Record with Greta van Susteren," Jennifer Barringer, who worked as a consultant to the defense, was asked if Anthony's refusal to testify might play into the hands of the prosecution, especially during closing arguments.

Barringer said she was "confounded" by so many people thinking that Anthony might testy, considering that she had a reputation as a "liar," which her lawyer addressed in his opening statements. She agreed with van Susteren that it was going to be "quite a feat for him [Baez] in closing" to explain why he had not delivered witnesses or some form of evidence of his allegations.

Geraldo Rivera predicted Anthony wouldn't take the stand. He said on WOFL in Florida that Baez wouldn't make the mistake that Rod Blagojavich's attorney made in his recent trial, where the former Illinois governor took the stand and "convicted himself out of his own mouth." Rivera, an attorney himself, said it was "extremely perilous" to put an "acknowledged liar" on the witness stand, and noted that Baez "will save her, hoping that this thing is reversed on appeal."

Would Anthony have helped her case by testifying, supporting her lawyer's claims that her daughter, Caylee, died in a drowning accident and that the subsequent series of events -- the partying, hiding of the disappearance of Caylee from her mother (Cindy), the lying to authorities -- was a result of long-term systematic emotional, psychological, and sexual abuse? Or was it too big of a chance to take, perhaps allowing the 25-year-old to appear unsympathetic and untruthful on the stand? Will it become a defining part of the defense's presentation, perhaps weigh into deliberations that although the defense presented various refutations and reasons for what might have occurred, they simply weren't credible? Or was there enough believable information provided from the defense's countering witnesses to set up reasonable doubt in the mind of at least one juror?

Why didn't Casey Anthony testify? It appears that her potential to hurt her case outweighed the benefits of any testimony she may have given. And in the end, hurting her case by even slightly might be the difference between a hung jury and a conviction for first degree murder.

If convicted, Anthony faces the death penalty.