Exactly, and that's why I say it shouldn't be allowed under the same premise by which a written statement would be allowed.
This part may very well be an agree to disagree sort of thing. While I wish we would change trials so that they were less about show and more about facts, I am not really concerned that video allows more empathic connection than a written statement. If anything that seems to argue for more use of it in general, given the nature of trials as they are.
What is necessarily wrong with having testimony that is more empathic than another kind of testimony (leaving aside the issue of non cross)?
The defendant is allowed to make a video statement in which he doesn't specifically say "I didn't kill this person" but instead says "I would never kill anyone". Would that not be a challenge to the accuser's statement?
He has already challenged the accuser's statement by entering a guilty plea. So general refutation is not the issue. The question is will he try and refute testimony as to the specifics of the event.
As long as he doesn't do that then there really is no problem on not having a cross, although one does wonder what he could say that wouldn't open the door to some topic for cross.
If you are wondering what he is left with that isn't direct challenge to testimony, I have already mentioned a bit: character. He can discuss what his life is like and what kind of issues he has to go through. Thus he can try to get past the fact that he looks strange and his behavior seems strange, which may effect how they view him.
He may also try and discuss larger issues that would be reasons not to convict him, though I seriously doubt he'd create a video asking them to allow for grown men to play sexually with boys because the world should realize not all such instances are damaging.
In any case, at this point I think its premature to argue it shouldn't be allowed as he has some options of what to discuss that sets a tone about himself, rather than specifically disputes something that defense can cross on.
Once the video is seen of course, there may be all sorts of reasons for disagreeing with it. I assume the judge and defense council will have to watch it before it is shown to the jury?
But the lack of evidence and the flimsy case that the prosecution has made would seem to me to make the video testimony unneccessary. If the only point is to establish that MJ is a nice man of good character, couldn't that be done by character witnesses? Why do we have to allow him to appear before the jury, in effect defending himself, without requiring him to take the stand?
Let me take this in reverse order. We have to allow him to do this because the judge has decided it is okay and (one must assume) will only deal with noncrossable details. Could the same thing be done with character witnesses? Absolutely and they already have, but I don't believe there should be restraint on testimony just because other testimony could or has done that job. I think you are right that it does seem unnecessary and personally I think it is a risky gambit.
Even if one does not question whether it is a legal thing he has chosen to do, it may very well reverse all the ground gained by character witnesses, because it will look like he is trying to avoid something. I agree silence might be the better part of valor in this instance.
But there is no law that you have to be smart in court.
holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)