CAMDEN, N.J. — Defending himself against capital murder charges may have been the most difficult sermon the Rabbi Fred J. Neulander has ever had to give.

Speaking from a witness box instead of a pulpit, the religious leader spent two days on the stand telling a jury of 14 that even though he repeatedly cheated on his wife of 28 years, he still loved her and had no involvement in her bludgeoning death.

Neulander, 60, is charged with offering two men $30,000 to kill his wife, Carol Neulander, and disguise the murder as a burglary.

His decision to take the stand and expose himself to prosecutor James Lynch's rigorous cross-examination, was a risk the rabbi had to take, say legal experts familiar with the case.

"When a wife is murdered, the jury wants the husband to take the stand if he says he had nothing to do with it," said Miles Feinstein, who has been involved with 175 capital cases over a 35-year career as a criminal defense attorney in New Jersey. "There was so much for the defense to answer in this case, and the only way to answer much of it was to put the rabbi on the stand."

But while Neulander seemed to have an answer for many of the obstacles Lynch presented during the state's 11-day case — from telling the jury his two-year affair with former Philadelphia radio host Elaine Soncini was the result of an "open marriage" policy he had with his wife to explaining a large sum of cash a fellow rabbi found him counting in the weeks before the murder as a loan that was unexpectedly repaid in cash — there were many questions to which Neulander's answers were thin at best.

The rabbi remained steadfast in his basic claim that he had nothing to do with the murder, which Leonard Jenoff and his roommate, Paul Michael Daniels, confessed to in April 2000. (Both testified on behalf of the state as part of plea agreements and are awaiting sentencing.)

Neulander waffled, however, when asked to explain eloquent love letters he wrote to Soncini, first saying they were sincere and then claiming that he only wanted to manipulate his mistress into continuing their sexual relationship. Neulander also admitted that, in the first stages of the investigation, it was more important to him that his affair with Soncini remain under wraps than it was to solve his wife's murder.

When defendants give up their right not to testify, it is often up to their lawyers to coach them on how to stand up to cross-examination. "This is the time you have to crack the whip as an attorney and say 'This is what you need to do,'" defense attorney and former prosecutor Isabelle Kirshner told Court TV.

But it's difficult to anticipate every line of questioning the prosecutor may develop, some criminal defense attorneys say, and the potential downfalls of letting a client testify often outweigh the advantages.

"I've never put a client on the stand in a capital case," Cherry Hill defense attorney Jerrold Colton said. "I've always thought about it and I've always thought better of it."

Colton, who used to work in the Camden County prosecutor's office, said the decision to put the rabbi on the witness stand may not have even been made by Dennis Wixted and Jeff Zucker, Neulander's defense team.

"Neulander probably took that decision out of their hands in his own belief that he could charm the jury," Colton said. "But it's one thing to give a sermon before a congregation and another thing to be cross-examined by a good prosecutor. I don't think Neulander realized how difficult it is to be cross-examined."

Notes Miles Feinstein, "lawyers, clergymen, public relations people — they're all use to speaking but they often make the worst witnesses in the world because they like to talk too much."

Courttv.com's Sam Handlin contributed to this report.