Bangkok: Vanguard won’t testify at his trial, but if he does he is a highly impeachable witness

By Bangkok

I don’t think Vanguard will testify on his own behalf.

I’m sure his defense team will bring in an outside attorney to play the role of a ‘mock’ prosecutor (just like OJ Simpson’s team did) in order to TEAR HIM APART in a ‘mock’ cross examination from prison.

This will be done to show Keith just how bad he’ll look (in front of a jury) when certain questions are asked by prosecutors.

Using an outside attorney is necessary since he’ll hate that person after they tear him apart.

However, assuming Claviger is correct and Keith does testify, then I’m wondering what types of ‘impeachment’ witnesses will be allowed afterward?

Seeing that I’m not an attorney and don’t know the rules for admissible impeachment witnesses, maybe Claviger could write an article telling us what types of impeachment witnesses could be called IF Keith decided to testify.

For instance… Can the prosecutor attempt to impeach his veracity or character by asking him if he’s ever had sex with underage girls as an adult (just to force Keith to deny it under cross examination) — so they can later bring forth witnesses like Rhiannon (or other people with firsthand knowledge that he’s lying) to ‘impeach’ his credibility on this issue?

Or is that not admissible because he’s not being charged with that particular crime?

If Keith chooses to go on the witness stand, wouldn’t that open him up to lots of extra ‘impeachment’ witnesses that otherwise wouldn’t be allowed to testify?

Convictions for previous crimes aren’t necessary for merely ‘impeaching’ a witness statement as either true or false, right?

If I’m mistaken, please tell us how that would work.

Even if prosecutors are forbidden from asking Keith about his fondness for underage sex, there’s still a TON of unflattering questions they can ask him to make him look very bad in front of the jury.

And when Keith lies in his answers to those questions, the prosecutor will be able to impeach his testimony by calling other witnesses.

Thus, I don’t see how Keith can realistically testify.

Narcissism isn’t enough to make him commit judicial suicide.

OJ Simpson was the ultimate narcissist who thought he could outsmart a jury by testifying on his own behalf. However, his own defense team used a ‘mock’ cross examination to prove it was a bad idea.

And it worked too, since OJ changed his mind and didn’t testify.

I believe the same will happen for Keith.