Every lawyer I know has been of the opinion that it's generally a bad idea to put the defendant on the stand. Really, history has generally shown that it's a bad idea. Even if the defendant is innocent and well coached - hell, even if the defendant is a lawyer him or herself - if the trial is going well for the defense, the defendant is more likely to hurt his or her case that he or she is likely to slightly strengthen it. Generally putting the defendant on the stand is a hail Mary move when the defense realizes it has a weak case.
That's why it surprises me that the defendants in each of the three major criminal trials of the couple months have taken the stand.
Rittenhouse taking the stand particularly surprised me because, quite frankly, the prosecution's case was just about dead before the defense even started calling witnesses. It turned out to be an okay move overall. Rittenhouse actually managed to out lawyer Binger and Binger almost managed to cause a mistrial with prejudice twice during cross examination. Still, a certain set of events allowed the prosecution to take its own hail Mary with the provocation claim.
Travis McMichael taking the stand made some sense to me as a ditch effort. It clearly didn't work too well.
Jussie Smollett taking the stand was clearly another hail Mary. I'm not happy that there aren't cameras in the court room; but, this seems to have been the bad move to end all bad moves. His story made even less sense than it did before. He was reportedly getting agitated and complained to the judge about having to answer the prosecutor's questions. He very likely committed perjury.
We've seen some bold moves in the last couple of months. I suspect that the move to put the defendant on the stand will have only worked one out of the three times.