Most observers believe that California has adopted the minority rule, "narrative question" approch to the problem of the criminal defendant client who intends to commit perjury. (I say that because the leading case is from our intermediate court of appeal. To my knowledge, our high court has not squarely addressed the issue.) Richard Zitrin finds that untenable. Key graf near the end:
Can we do better [than the narrative form solution]? The Johnson opinion is least persuasive when it criticizes disclosure to the court. This disclosure, coupled with testimony in the ordinary format, is far better than the lose-lose narrative solution. For me, if push came to shove I'd side with [Monroe] Freedman if my strong-arming my client failed, and put on the perjured testimony in the ordinary way, hoping that I won't lose my bar ticket afterwards. Juries are not easily fooled, and know full well that an accused has a motive of to lie. It's partly for this reason that many defense lawyers are reluctant to have their clients testify, regardless of the perjury issue.