Opinion ID: 805909
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Hoopman Subpoena

Text: Garvey first alleges that the district court’s misstatement of its subpoena power denied him his Sixth Amendment right to call witnesses on his behalf. Because Garvey did not raise this issue below, we review for plain error. See United States v. Peugh, 675 F.3d 736, 740 (7th Cir. 2012). Under this standard, we determine whether there was “(1) an error, (2) that was plain, meaning clear or obvious, (3) that affected the defendant’s substantial rights in that he probably would not have been convicted absent the error, and (4) that seriously affected the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of judicial proceedings.” United States v. Christian, 673 F.3d 702, 708 (7th Cir. 2012). The Sixth Amendment guarantees a defendant the right to present his own witnesses to establish his defense. Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 409 (1988). Garvey alleges that the district court’s initial misstatement of its subpoena power2 was plain error resulting in the 2 During the Friday conference, the judge stated that his jurisdiction only extends one hundred miles for service of a subpoena. This is the civil subpoena power, as stated in (continued...) No. 11-3088 7 denial of this right. Had the district court properly stated its subpoena jurisdiction in the Friday conference, Garvey would have had an additional weekend to serve Hoopman and present his testimony at trial. Garvey acknowledges that Hoopman’s testimony would have been presented solely for impeachment purposes. He argues that because the government placed so much reliance on Wyttenbach’s testimony to convict Garvey, Hoopman’s testimony was crucial because it demonstrated that Wyttenbach lied and played a bigger role than he let on. This, in turn, would have cast doubt on Garvey’s role in the conspiracy. But we believe Garvey overstates the value of Hoopman’s testimony. Garvey’s counsel thoroughly impeached Wyttenbach during trial. Wyttenbach admitted that he lied to police and downplayed his role in the conspiracy to protect himself and his friends. Thus, any impeachment testimony by Hoopman would have been cumulative. Further, we are not convinced that the extent of Wyttenbach’s role in the conspiracy necessarily bears on Garvey’s own unlawful conduct. The district court on more than one occasion questioned whether Hoopman’s testimony was material to Garvey’s defense. Accordingly, even if the district court did plainly err in misstating its subpoena power, Garvey cannot establish 2 (...continued) Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45(b)(2)(B). In criminal proceedings, however, “[a] subpoena requiring a witness to attend a hearing or trial may be served at any place within the United States.” Fed. R. Crim. P. 17(e)(1). 8 No. 11-3088 that his substantial rights were affected such that he probably would not have been convicted.