deliberations during the highly subjective penalty phase. In light of the indication by six of the twelve seated jurors that they considered a defendant’s record at least somewhat relevant in determining the appropriateness of a given sentence, defendant stresses the high probability of such a prejudicial impact. Another reason why jury bifurcation would have been highly appropriate in this ease is that, unlike the other cases in which-this Court and lower courts have considered jury-bifurcation motions, this case involved limited-admissibilit 455 (1990) (same holding under New Jersey Constitution). In the context of a capital prosecution, a violation of the right to testify cannot be deemed harmless, because of its fundamental nature. State v. Rosillo, 281 N.W.2d 877, 879 (Minn.1979) (<HOLDING>). Further, defendant was prejudiced by the
holding right to testify was federal constitutional right holding that a violation of the hearsay rule was harmless 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 holding that violation of rule 16 in that case was not harmless error holding violation of right to testify could not be harmless