Opinion ID: 149986
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Subpoena of additional witnesses

Text: Mr. Stanley’s challenge to the district court’s refusal to issue a subpoena at government expense is also reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard. United States v. Pursley, 577 F.3d 1204, 1229 (10th Cir. 2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 1098 (2010). A court is required to issue a subpoena when an indigent defendant: “shows an inability to pay the witness’s fees;” and “demonstrates the necessity for the witness’s presence for an adequate defense.” Id. at 1230 (citing Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(b)). “To show necessity, a defendant must establish that the witness’s testimony is relevant, material, and useful.” Id. (quotation omitted). -6- In ruling on Mr. Stanley’s motion, the district court determined that five of the eight named witnesses would not provide relevant and material testimony and were therefore not necessary for an adequate defense. Its careful winnowing of Mr. Stanley’s subpoena requests was well within the district court’s discretion.