Mark Steyn continues his excellent analysis of the criminal case against Conrad Black (prior posts here) with this lengthy piece on the trial, in which he agrees with me regarding the defense team’s decision not to have Lord Black testify:

When Black declined to testify in his own defence, the result was that he was defined only by the glimpses of him permitted by the government: he was the guy who, in Alana’s phrase, got the money, and sent boorish emails, and installed heated towel rails in his Park Avenue apartment. Had he been put on the stand, he would certainly have been tripped up by government lawyers in some areas, but he would have opened up others that allowed the jury to see Conrad Black as a man in full, warts and all, rather than only the warts, the unsightly carbuncles of non-compete fees and company-jet perks and a security video of a British peer taking boxes down the back stairs of a Toronto office building.

Steyn also has some choice words for the Black defense team, which he viewed as largely dysfunctional. Reading Steyn’s piece along with this lengthy Adrian and Olga Stein essay (pdf) on the background of the case against Lord Black leaves one with a depressing image of how the U.S. criminal justice system is being manipulated to regulate the unpopular businessperson of the moment.