Noriega Declines to Take Witness Stand : Narcotics: Deposed Panamanian strongman said he feared he would be unable to discuss ‘political matters.’ The defense rests at the Miami trial.

The defense in the drug trafficking trial of Gen. Manuel A. Noriega rested Tuesday after the deposed Panamanian strongman told the federal judge hearing the case that he would not take the witness stand.

During an extraordinary morning conference in the chambers of U.S. District Judge William M. Hoeveler, the uniformed Noriega said that although “I would not want the prosecutors or the lawyers present here to interpret my waiver of not testifying as thinking I am hiding from anything,” he chose that option because he feared he would be unable to discuss “political matters, issues of war and the invasion.”

Noriega surrendered to U.S. military forces that invaded Panama in December, 1989. Held in a federal prison here since January, 1990, Noriega went on trial last September on 10 separate charges of conspiracy, racketeering and international drug-trafficking stemming from the prosecution’s contention that the military ruler turned Panama into a transshipment and money-laundering center for Colombian cocaine barons.

With the defense finished, the government is expected to spend about a week on its rebuttal before the 12-member jury is asked to decide the fate of Noriega, the first foreign leader ever seized in his own country and brought to the United States to stand trial as a criminal in civilian court. If convicted on all 10 counts, he could be sentenced to up to 140 years.

Noriega’s decision not to testify came as a disappointment to many observers, including a large corps of international news media, but it was no surprise. In six months of testimony, convicted drug dealers called by the government have sworn that Noriega took millions of dollars from Colombian smugglers to allow drugs and drug-processing chemicals to pass through Panama during much of the 1980s. Other witnesses have testified that Noriega and his Panamanian Defense Force also turned a blind eye to huge money-laundering operations.

The defense has countered with several agents of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency who have testified--often reluctantly--that the PDF at times aided them in the struggle to staunch the flow of narcotics to the United States. Documents produced before the trial show that Noriega was on the Central Intelligence Agency payroll for years.

Noriega told the judge through an interpreter that he had “sufficient documents and sufficient mental recollection to answer any of the questions that I’ve heard in the months I have been sitting here.”

But clearly there are events not directly connected with the federal indictment that prosecutors could probe on cross-examination, including the 1985 murder of his rival, Dr. Hugo Spadafora, and the 1989 execution of failed coup leader Maj. Moises Giroldi Vega and 10 others.

Noriega’s chief attorney, Frank A. Rubino, said the Spadafora murder and Giroldi coup attempt were “totally outside the scope of the case presented by the government” and were not factors considered by his client in deciding not to testify.

When asked by Judge Hoeveler if anyone had “forced you or coerced you” not to testify, Noriega replied: “No one would be able to do that.”

Hoeveler then went on to ask Noriega if he were in good health and whether he had seen a psychologist or psychiatrist during his incarceration here. “No,” said Noriega. “Last year at the date of the anniversary of the invasion, the director of MCC (the federal prison) sent a psychiatrist over, but I said it wasn’t necessary.”

D. Marvin Jones, a law professor at the University of Miami, said Noriega’s decision not to testify may constitute an admission by the defense that conviction on at least some of the charges is probable. “Noriega is the only person who can tell us absolutely what happened,” said Jones, “and to be acquitted on all counts, he would have to testify forcefully. But he would be vulnerable because he is neither educated or articulate. He would not have made a very good witness.”

The defense ended its case with a plea for more government documents, charging prosecutors with “not acting in good faith,” in the words of defense counsel Jon May.

The final defense witness was former Panamanian legislator Jerry Wilson, who said Monday that Noriega personally lobbied for a tough money-laundering law in 1986.

Prior to Wilson, DEA agent Douglas L. Driver acknowledged writing a letter to Noriega in which he thanked him for his efforts to stop the drug traffic. During cross-examination by prosecutors, however, Driver said the letters were routine “attaboy” letters of praise that were virtually dictated by Noriega subordinates for use as propaganda.