Will Ghislaine Maxwell take the stand in her sex-trafficking trial?

Defendants are often advised against doing so

With the court adjourned on Thursday in the second week of Ghislaine Maxwell’s sex-trafficking trial due to the illness of an attorney, the prosecution’s plans to rest their case could be delayed.

The final accuser of Ms Maxwell, Annie Farmer, was due to take the stand and the government case against the British socialite was expected to wrap up on Friday.

That puts the emphasis on Ms Maxwell’s legal team as it is then their turn to call witnesses to defend their client against the six charges to which she must answer.

But will the defendant testify herself?

Once the prosecution rests, Judge Alison Nathan will ask Ms Maxwell if she would like to take the stand to tell her version of events.

Defence lawyers tend to advise against such a move. Ultimately, however, the decision is up to the defendant.

Speaking to The New York Times, Mark Richards, who represented Kyle Rittenhouse, said he believed: “She would do more harm than good.”

If she were to take the stand she could be questioned about her close ties to Jeffrey Epstein for whom she is accused of grooming girls for abuse. He died in jail – apparently by suicide – two years ago while awaiting trial.

“She’s trying to separate herself from Epstein,” Mr Richards said. “At least now, you can blame it on a dead guy.”

Nevertheless, there is some precedent in a current trial occurring on the west coast, where Theranos founder Elizabeth Holmes is charged with nine counts of wire fraud and two counts of conspiracy to commit wire fraud.

Ms Holmes, who pleaded not guilty, testified for seven days in her own defence.

Mr Richards notes: “There’s cases where you will do everything humanly possible to keep your client off [the stand] because you know he’s going to hurt him or herself,”

However, he adds: “There’s other cases where you just know that it’s going to be needed and you do everything you can to prepare the person and get them ready.”

Ms Maxwell has paid close attention to trial evidence and testimony, passing notes to her lawyers and speaking with them each day before the jury is seated.

The burden of proof in a trial is on the prosecution as the defendant is innocent until proven guilty. Their case must be strong enough to convince the jury.

Professor Jessica Roth, a former federal prosecutor who now teaches law, tells the Times, “It’s going to come down to the defence’s assessment of how strong the government’s case came in and whether it’s worth taking the risk [of allowing her to testify].”

If the evidence presented by the prosecution is deemed as having come across as weak or has been easy to poke holes in during cross-examination, then a robust summation by defence counsel may be all that is needed to show a jury that there isn’t enough proof to convict.

Conversely, if Ms Maxwell were to testify, it gives the prosecution the chance to lay out all of their evidence against her again and potentially attack her credibility as a witness if they are able to show she lied.

Any reasonable doubt regarding her guilt that may have surfaced during prior testimony by other witnesses would be undone.

Essentially, she could incriminate herself, and by choosing to testify she would be giving up her right not to incriminate herself.