For many of us courtroom watchers, our gut instinct says that Rajat Gupta should not take the stand in the trial "U.S. v Gupta." In THE WALL STREET JOURNAL, Michael Rothfeld presents both the cons and the pros of this possible defense tactic.
Given that jurors are human beings, we recognize that often they are influenced by more than just the evidence. They respond to the human beings involved.
Elite professionals with an earlier track track for outstanding achievement rarely do well with jurors. Maybe the evidence did them in. Or maybe their atypical persona rubbed jurors the wrong way.
Gupta is certainly atypical. A man of unusual drive and intellect, he rose to the top of professional services and served on boards of brandname corporations. Isn't it a stretch to assume that jurors can relate to that?
Since the evidence is for the most part circumstantial, Gupta should take refuge in that ambiguity and not muddy the waters with revealing too much of himself.