Right-to-testify

Questions Presented 1. Consistent with a criminal defendant’s fundamental right to testify in his or her own defense — as well as the right to present a complete defense, the right to a fundamentally fair trial, and the presumption of innocence with corresponding burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt — may a trial court direct jurors not to accept the defendant’s uncorroborated testimony as proof? 2. Where a trial court violates a criminal defendant’s right to testify, does the violation undermine a “protected autonomy right” under McCoy v. Louisiana, 138 S. Ct. 1500 (2018), amounting to structural error and requiring reversal? 3. If not structural error, may a trial court’s right-to-testify violation — instructing jurors that defendant’s testimony must be corroborated to “prove any fact” — be deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt where, among other factors, the prosecutor concedes the defendant’s testimony addressed every element of the state’s case; and the court finds the jury’s task in evaluating evidentiary conflicts was as “demanding” as it could possibly be? il