Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): it is not counsel’s decision.” Cannon v. Mullin, 383 F.3d 1152, 1171 (10th Cir.2004), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 125 S.Ct. 1664, 161 L.Ed.2d 491 (2005). A trial court has no duty to explain to the defendant, however, that he has a right to testify or to verify that a defendant who is not testifying has waived the right. See United States v. Ortiz, 82 F.3d 1066, 1069-70 & 1069 n. 8 (D.C.Cir.1996) (collecting cases); cf. United States v. Janoe, 720 F.2d 1156, 1161 (10th Cir.1983). To ensure his constitutional rights, “a defendant must alert the trial court that he desires to testify or that there is a disagreement with defense counsel regarding whether he should take the stand.” United States v. Webber, 208 F.3d 545, 550 (6th Cir.2000) (quotation omitted); Janoe, 720 F.2d at 1161 n. 9 (<HOLDING>). ‘When a defendant does not alert the trial 
 Holding statements: (A) holding violation of right to testify could not be harmless (B) holding that right to testify not denied where inter alia defendant made no objection to his attorneys statements that defendant would not testify and made no request to testify (C) recognizing that criminal defendants right to testify is subject to crossexamination (D) recognizing that where witness has no constitutional or statutory right to refuse to testify jurors are entitled to draw negative inference from witness refusal to testify (E) holding right to testify was federal constitutional right
Output (English): holding violation of right to testify could not be harmless