In the George Zimmerman trial, GZ was asked by the judge whether he wanted to take the stand in his own defense on Wednesday. As I gather, the prosecutors asked the judge for the inclusion of lesser charges, including manslaughter, sometime after GZ declared that he would not take the stand, and the judge ruled on Thursday that she would allow the jurors to also consider the manslaughter charge.
I couldn't help but wonder the following.
If I were Zimmerman, my decision whether to take the stand would have been very much dependent on whether I was facing the manslaughter charge along with the 2nd degree murder charge or just the latter, since the perceived "burden of proof" (esp, proving the "ill will", "depravity of mind," etc, aspects of that charge) rests much more heavily on prosecution in proving a 2nd degree murder charge as compared to manslaughter. I would have probably leaned towards:
1. taking the stand if the manslaughter charge were included
2. not taking the stand if only 2nd degree murder charge were present.
In other words, a defendant's decision regarding taking the stand should be treated as a function of what charges are present at the time he/she is asked to make the decision.
Given this, the fact that the motion and ruling were made AFTER GZ was given the choice to take the stand or not appears to me to be a significant injustice rendered to Zimmerman's right to a fair trial.
What do the law, FL law in particular, and the guidelines thereof, say about this particular aspect (i.e. timing relative to asking the defendant whether he/she would like to take the stand) of lesser charges being included by a judge? Could this be a key ground on which GZ could appeal if he is acquitted on the 2nd degree charge, but convicted on the lesser charge of manslaughter?