There seems to be two big questions surrounding this trial.

The first is whether the defense will call Casey to testify in her own behalf. We all know that a criminal defendant cannot be compelled to testify; the burden to prove the case falls on the State – the State being the prosecutor. The accused does not have to “disprove” the allegations. Jurors are not supposed to draw any conclusion or presumption from the failure to testify. Of course we can never know what is really going on in any juror’s mind. A defense attorney must make an educated guess as to what is going on in the minds of the jurors.

If all is going well – from the defense perspective, the State has failed to live up to its obligation to present evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is, of course, in the eye of the beholder. If only one juror does not believe that the burden has been met, the defendant will not be convicted of that charge. That does not mean an acquittal. It most likely means a hung jury and another trial. Not great for the defendant, but better than a conviction. At that point, silence is probably the best option.

However, if the defense believes that the State has presented a compelling argument, they may decide to let the defendant testify to explain away any troubling facts. This is risky. A less than compelling performance by the defendant can push an unsure juror towards a guilty verdict. Testifying under aggressive questioning by a zealous prosecutor is not easy and anybody can end up looking guilty or at least appear to be lying. Courtroom performance is just as important as the truth.

In Casey Anthony’s case, her testimony, if she decides to take the stand, will probably decide the outcome of the case. Without suggesting guilt or innocence, Casey Anthony will have to do a lot of explaining. Her “partying” while her daughter was missing, her inconsistent statements and recent allegations that her father abused her will all be subject to exhaustive examination.

The other big question surrounding this trial is whether the State has proven its case. Most analysis of this trial cites the case as circumstantial. A person can be convicted by circumstantial evidence. This, however, is where I go back to the CSI Effect. A specific cause of death has not been established. There is no direct evidence tying Casey to her daughter’s death. Jurors may be wondering why the advanced forensic sciences we have available today have not proved valuable to the prosecution.

The decision of the defense as to whether Casey will testify and the final decision of the jury will be two courtroom developments that will be discussed for years to come.