Here is the transcript of sniper case defendant John Muhammed's opening statement today. The Washington Post has this article on why it's rarely helpful for defendants to represent themselves.

We think Muhammed is making a big mistake. He has excellent court appointed lawyers. He can't know what evidence is objectionable or how to preserve error for appeal.

Tomorrow at 3pm ET, in a Washington Post online chat , we'll be discussing the issue of whether Muhammed's self-representation could make a difference in the death penalty phase of the trial (assuming he's found guilty of the murder).

Self-Representation in a death case....Is Mr. Muhammed crazy or crazy like a fox?

Conventional wisdom tells us that sniper case defendant John Muhammed is crazy to represent himself at trial. The evidence against him reportedly is substantial, and the crime is so horrendous that even the most skilled death penalty lawyers would have a difficult time convincing even one juror to vote for life if he is found guilty.

Is there a flip side to the argument? There are ten women jurors on the case. Women may be more empathetic and compassionate in a death case. A major goal in any death penalty trial is to get the jurors to see your client as a human being, to find something about your client that will touch them in a way that makes them unable to vote to kill him. What better way for this to happen than for the jurors to hear and see Mr. Muhammed every day for weeks? Assuming he keeps his demeanor respectful, and doesn't turn hostile and obstreperous, perhaps one juror will say to themselves and their fellow jurors, "I just can't vote to kill him."

If you're online tomorrow between 3 and 4 ET, please join in.