Update, November 4, 2026.
Update, 5:05 p.m., November 4. The defense rested shortly before 5 p.m. without Farwell testifying, Boston 25 News reported. Closing arguments are expected Friday, November 6.
Update, November 4, 2026.
Update, 2:20 p.m., November 4. Farwell’s words, “at this time,” leave open the possibility that he could change course before the defense formally rests. Pathologist Dr. Thomas Andrew, the final expected defense witness, began testifying after the lunch break, NBC10 Boston reported. NBC10, WCVB and Boston 25 have all reported Farwell’s decision not to testify.
Matthew Farwell will not testify in his own defense. The former Stoughton police detective told the judge on Wednesday, November 4, 2026, “At this time I elect not to testify,” according to NBC10 Boston; MassLive quoted him as saying, “At this time, I would not like to testify.” Chief Judge Denise Casper has given Farwell until the moment the defense formally rests to change his mind, MassLive reported. The decision came while the jury was at lunch, after Chief Judge Denise Casper asked his lawyers whether they had discussed it with him and then questioned Farwell directly. Asked whether he understood, he said, “Yes, I do,” according to NBC10.
Farwell is charged with killing Sandra Birchmore, who was pregnant, in February 2021 and staging her death to look like a suicide. He has pleaded not guilty and is presumed innocent. The Boston Globe reported that he faces life in federal prison if convicted. The defense was expected to call one more witness, pathologist Dr. Thomas Andrew, and rest. There is no jury on Thursday, and closing arguments are expected Friday, NBC10 and WCVB reported.
The jury will never hear Farwell’s own account of the night of February 1, 2021. Here is what the law says about that silence, and what jurors will be told about it. We read the Fifth Amendment at Cornell’s Legal Information Institute and the Supreme Court decisions below on CourtListener.
Why the decision was his
The Fifth Amendment provides that no person “shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself.” The prosecution could never call Farwell as a witness.
He also had a right to testify if he wanted to. In Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987), the Supreme Court recognized a criminal defendant’s “right to testify on his or her own behalf,” calling it “a necessary corollary to the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee against compelled testimony.” That is why the judge asked Farwell himself, on the record, rather than relying on his lawyers.
The jury may not hold it against him
- No comment by the prosecution. In Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965), the Court held that the Fifth Amendment “forbids either comment by the prosecution on the accused’s silence or instructions by the court that such silence is evidence of guilt.” Prosecutors cannot tell the jury in Friday’s closing that Farwell never explained himself.
- An instruction on request. In Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. 288 (1981), the Court held that the Fifth Amendment “requires that a criminal trial judge must give a ‘no-adverse-inference’ jury instruction when requested by a defendant to do so.” Without it, the Court said, jurors “may well draw adverse inferences from a defendant’s silence.”
The burden stays on the government to prove every element beyond a reasonable doubt. A defendant does not have to prove anything or say anything.
What he avoided
Had he testified, Farwell would have faced cross-examination by federal prosecutors. Boston 25 legal analyst Elyse Hershon had said she would be surprised if he took the stand, because he could face questions about his relationship with Birchmore and other conduct beyond the charges, the station reported. Prosecutors allege the relationship began when Birchmore was 15.
The only version of his account the jury has heard came secondhand: a State Police homicide investigator testified that Farwell said he went to Birchmore’s apartment to end the relationship, in an interview that was not recorded, WCVB reported.
Where the defense case stands
Defense witnesses challenged the government’s medical, DNA and digital evidence. On Wednesday, digital forensics expert Daniel Loper testified that investigators did not follow best practices in preserving Birchmore’s laptop and that its initial extraction was lost, NBC10 reported. On cross-examination, he acknowledged that Farwell gave State Police his personal phone with no messages to Birchmore on it, even though her phone showed tens of thousands of exchanges between them, according to NBC10.
Outside the jury’s presence, Judge Casper also refused the defense’s request for an instruction telling jurors they could infer that the lost laptop data would have been unfavorable to the government, saying she did not think the prosecution had shown bad faith, and certainly not gross negligence, NBC10 reported.
Our full trial tracker, updated through the day.
Frequently asked questions
Did Matthew Farwell testify?
No. On November 4, 2026, he told the judge he would not testify at this time, NBC10 Boston, WCVB, Boston 25 and MassLive reported. The judge gave him until the defense formally rests to change his mind, according to MassLive.
Can the jury hold it against him?
No. Under Griffin v. California and Carter v. Kentucky, the prosecution cannot comment on the defendant’s silence, and on request the judge must tell jurors not to draw any inference from it.
Why did the judge question Farwell directly?
The right to testify belongs to the defendant personally, under Rock v. Arkansas. A judge typically confirms on the record that the defendant understands the right and made the choice himself.
When are closing arguments in the Farwell trial?
Friday, November 6, 2026. The jury is not in court Thursday, NBC10 and WCVB reported.
Sources: NBC10 Boston live coverage, November 4, 2026 (decision, quotes, Loper testimony, instruction ruling); Boston 25 News, November 3 and 4, 2026 (Hershon analysis); WCVB, November 4, 2026 (investigator testimony, schedule); Boston Globe, November 3, 2026 (potential sentence). U.S. Constitution, Fifth Amendment, read at Cornell’s Legal Information Institute. Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44 (1987); Griffin v. California, 380 U.S. 609 (1965); and Carter v. Kentucky, 450 U.S. 288 (1981), verified and read on CourtListener. General information, not legal advice.