AT AMAZON, markdowns in Grills & Outdoor Cooking.

A COMMENT FROM JUDGE ROBERT STEIGMANN:

Conservative commentators (like Mark Levin) and bloggers are completely wrong to criticize the trial judge in the Zimmerman case for questioning the defendant to ensure his decision not to testify is knowingly made. Here’s why.

A defendant’s decision whether to testify is personal to him, just like his decisions whether (1) to plead guilty or not guilty and (2) to have a jury trial or a bench trial. His attorney can and should advise him about his decision to testify, but that decision remains the defendant’s to make.

Many cases have arisen in which convicted defendants have filed postconviction petitions claiming their rights were violated because they wanted to testify and their attorneys wouldn’t let them. Similarly, many other cases have arisen in which convicted defendants claim that they never wanted to testify but their lawyers forced them to. An often troubling aspect of these cases is that what the defendants allege is true because their lawyers, out of ignorance, did not know that the decision about testifying is personal to the defendant.

As a judge on the Illinois Fourth District Appellate Court, I wrote a decision 14 years ago urging trial judges to make a record regarding a defendant’s decision to testify precisely as the trial judge did with George Zimmerman, which, of course, must take place out of the presence of the jury. (See People v. Frieberg, 305 Ill. App. 3d 840, 852, 238 Ill. Dec. 964, 973, 713 N.E.2d 210, 219 (4th Dist. 1999).) I’m gratified to report that trial judges throughout Illinois are following my advice and admonishing defendants accordingly.

Happily, it doesn’t matter.

UPDATE: Prof. Seth Barrett Tillman writes:

Fourteen years ago, in People v. Frieberg, 305 Ill. App. 3d 840, 852 (4th Dist. 1999), Judge Steigman wrote:

To defuse this explosive situation [involving post-conviction collateral attack on a conviction for ineffective assistance of counsel involving the defendant’s right to testify or not to do so], we urge trial courts in every criminal case to take the few seconds needed, after the State has rested its case in chief and before the presentation of the defense case, to admonish the defendant personally that he alone possesses the right to choose whether to testify on his own behalf, and that he should make that decision after consulting with counsel. Trial courts should emphasize to the defendant that whatever trial counsel’s advice on this point may be, counsel cannot force the defendant to testify, nor can counsel prevent the defendant from testifying. For good measure, the court should once again inquire of the defendant before he testifies (or the defense rests without his testimony) to ensure that his decision about this matter was his alone and not coerced.

Had Judge Nelson followed Judge Steigman’s wise set of precautions no one would have had cause to complain. But Judge Nelson did not do that.

Judge Nelson did not merely admonish Zimmerman to the effect that he “personally … possesses the right to choose whether to testify”. Frieberg’s point is to make sure that the Defendant acts intelligently, knowingly, and voluntarily when the defendant avails himself of his right to testify or not to testify, and to make sure that the decision is ultimately made by the Defendant not the lawyer. But Nelson was not merely giving Zimmerman information about his rights: Nelson pressed Zimmerman as to what choice he was going to make in regard to testifying. Nelson specifically pressed Zimmerman for an answer as to whether he would testify or not. When a cautious Zimmerman told Judge Nelson that he had not yet made up his mind, Judge Nelson then pressed Zimmerman for a specific date & time as to when he would make up his mind. All this happened before the defense rested its case. The obvious time to waive the right to testify, if Zimmerman was to choose to waive it, was at the end of the trial (as Judge Steigman specifically indicated in Frieberg). Why? Because a decision to testify or not is primarily contingent on what the defense’s remaining witnesses say on direct and on cross-examination, and on what the State’s remaining rebuttal witnesses will say. Pressing Zimmerman for an answer involving his right to testify before that last witness comes in was inconsistent with Steigman’s position in Frieberg. At least that is my reading of Frieberg. But if I have read Frieberg incorrectly, I am certainly open to being corrected (and admonished) by its author.

Also, Zimmerman’s lawyers did more than object: they tried to put the reasons for their objection on the record. They were denied a full and fair opportunity to do so. That too seems odd. Very odd.

Perhaps Judge Steigmann will view the actual colloquy (http://nation.foxnews.com/2013/07/11/greta-zimmerman-judge-was-way-out-line), and let us know if he still thinks Judge Nelson’s decision to press Zimmerman — at that time and in that way and in that tone — was consistent with best practices, his prior Frieberg opinion, and, indeed, consistent with anything he has seen or heard before in any court of record. Judges are loathe to publicly criticize one another. But if one state judge is going to defend another state judge in order, ostensibly, to facilitate the public’s (and the bar’s) education, than Judge Steigmann should make clear if he actually heard the Nelson-Zimmerman colloquy in full.

Well, the good news, as I say, is that it turned out not to matter. But it certainly did seem as if the judge was in the prosecution’s corner.

MORE: Judge Steigmann responds: “Prof. Tillman makes some good points, particularly regarding the timing and tone of the judge’s admonitions to Zimmerman. Best practices would be for the trial judge to engage in this discussion after the defense has called all its witnesses except for the defendant. The point of my initial message was to emphasize that trial judges should always question defendants to ensure that they understand the personal nature of this decision, even if the admonitions in this case were hardly ideal.”

IRS SCANDAL: The Difference Between Harassment And Routine Scrutiny.

This week’s disclosure does reveal that there was, in fact, a dedicated “Tea Party Coordinator” at the IRS, a position that had no analogue on the left.

What’s more, nothing the Democrats have brought forward explain why:

(1) Only 30 percent of groups with the word “progressive” received extra scrutiny — but 100 percent of groups with “tea party,” “patriot” or “9/12” in their name were subjected to invasive questioning.

(2) Agency officials have claimed in the past that “Tea Party” could mean “liberal” — if, indeed, liberal groups were on the BOLO lists as we’re now being told;

and again, the grandaddy of them all

(3) Why only conservative groups have been able to document harassment from the IRS.

When Democrats can bring forward lefty groups like all the conservatives who testified before Congress, that’s when their claims that the targeting was incompetent — and bipartisanly so — will begin to gain even a scintilla of credibility.

Indeed.

SO WHEN DOES GEORGE ZIMMERMAN Sue NBC?

I GUESS THE OVERNIGHT POLLS ARE IN: Obama talks about Zimmerman verdict, doesn’t talk about race.

AT AMAZON, Up to 60% off on Athletic & Outdoor Clothing for Men & Women.

STEVEN GREENHUT: Journalism Is An Act, Not A Profession. “Government already holds the cards. It is so big and powerful, so secretive and arrogant that we ought not to hobble efforts by reporters and bloggers to expose its dealings.”

YOU KNEW IT WAS COMING: Hitler learns that Angela Corey lost.

THE PRESIDENT ACTED STUPIDLY: Remark by Obama Complicates Military Sexual Assault Trials. But keeping his mouth shut isn’t one of his core skills.

PROF. JACOBSON ON ANGELA COREY: There should be a special prosecutor appointed to investigate this special prosecution. Let me just note, in passing, that his Legal Insurrection blog has had the best blog coverage of this case around.

HOMESCHOOLS, PUBLIC SCHOOLS, AND BRICKS IN THE WALL.

DIVERSITY PROBLEM: Stuart Stevens: Wendy Davis’ Shoes and America’s Ideologically Monochromatic Newsrooms. “Overwhelmingly Democratic newsrooms remain incapable of hearing voices different from their own. . . . No one seems to dispute the point that diverse viewpoints and backgrounds are needed to cover a like world. But while newsrooms have become somewhat more ethnically diverse over the last forty years, the opposite has occurred, at least in the political world, on the cultural-ideological scale.”

WALL STREET JOURNAL: Who Ruined The Humanities? “The disheartening fact is that for every college professor who made Shakespeare or Lawrence come alive for the lucky few—the British scholar Frank Kermode kindled Shakespeare into an eternal flame in my head—there were countless others who made the reading of literary masterpieces seem like two hours in the periodontist’s chair. In their numbing hands, the term ‘humanities’ became code for ‘and you don’t even have to show up to get an A.'”

NEWS YOU CAN USE: Homemade Bacon Tastes Amazing.

One of the great joys in life is good bacon. I have purchased great bacon from time to time. A lot of people avoid bacon. They are missing something. It’s part of a healthy diet! I eat bacon all the time, and my weight is down, along with my cholesterol. I never understood things like Turkey bacon.

When I wanted really good bacon, I went to The Butcher and Larder. He makes his own. Online at Instapundit, I read that you could make bacon at home. . . . It tastes amazing. I threw some photos up on Instagram, Twitter and Facebook @pointsnfigures. It might be some of the best bacon I have ever had. There is no way it lasts a week in my home. My next move is to go to Butcher and Larder and buy some more fresh belly. You have got to try making bacon at home. You won’t buy chain grocery store bacon again.

So there you are.

BLOG CARNIVAL: The Paleo Rodeo #170 is up!

JOHN RANSOM: The Date Rape Of America. “I grew up in a country where the rule of law was supreme. Or at least it seemed that way. But somewhere along the line the varnish of polite society has been worn off so that the brass now shows through.”

WHEN I WAS A KID GROWING UP IN CAMBRIDGE, IT WAS LIKE A SEWER: Charles River Now Clean Enough For Swimming. On the other hand: “Some swimmers described the water as orange or resembling beef broth. Charles River Conservancy head Renata von Tscharner said she preferred to describe it as resembling tea.”

COLLEGE COEDS ARE HAVING SEX, and the New York Times is ON IT!

But it was like this when I was in college, too. (And women were doing plenty of the pursuing/hookup initiating). This is just the new “Friends With Benefits.” Once again, I have to ask, what were these journalism majors doing in college?

But for those women who plan on waiting to date or get married until their late 20s or early 30s, well, watch this.