Does Defendant's Decision Not to Testify Constitute a Constitutional Violation ?
In People v. Rosenberg, our supreme court recognized that defendants are often faced with difficult decisions when weighing the pros and cons of testifying at trial.
Yet, the necessity of making those decisions does not inevitably deprive defendants of any constitutional rights. People v. Rosenberg, 213 Ill. 2d 69, 81, 820 N.E.2d 440, 448, 289 Ill. Dec. 664 (2004).
Notwithstanding the peril faced by defendants through impeachment with prior convictions, the court reasoned, "That a defendant may decide not to testify in a given case does not give rise to a constitutional violation." Rosenberg, 213 Ill. 2d at 81, 820 N.E.2d at 448.
The People v. Averett, Nos. 106362, 106621 cons., 237 Ill. 2d 1, (April 15, 2010) court likewise concluded that the defendants' claims did not involve constitutional error subject to review on appeal despite their choice against testifying at trial. Averett, 2010 Ill.