Opinion ID: 791857
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Exclusion of Testimony and the Right to Due Process

Text: 119 Lyle and Erik sought to introduce testimony that could explain why they feared their parents. These witnesses were referred to by the trial court as so-called source witnesses, people who had observed certain things, either observed the interaction of the defendants with their parents or gave character evidence... relating to the parents, ... things of that nature.... 120 The trial court ruled, however, that the defendants were required first to lay a foundation, which in this case, could only be accomplished if the defendants testified about their actual belief of imminent danger. Indeed, we, too, see no other competent way in which the foundation could have been laid. Erik took the stand, but Lyle chose not to testify. Petitioners argue that the trial court's ruling violated their rights to due process because it forced them to choose between their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and their Sixth Amendment right to present a defense. We disagree. 121 In disallowing this evidence, the trial judge explained: 122 The relevance of the expert testimony of these experts that we've referred to in the hearing, the relevance of that testimony was to and is to corroborate the testimony of the defendants regarding their mental state at the time of the killing, and to dispel certain misconceptions regarding the conduct of an individual faced with a situation or circumstances as described by the defendants. 123 The issue, as I looked at it and look at it now, is the state of mind of the defendants at the time of the killing as to whether there was an actual belief of imminent danger of death or great bodily injury and a need to act. Obviously, if that actual belief is not presented to the jury, then the experts have nothing to corroborate.... 124 Since the relevance of the expert testimony is related to the state of mind of the defendants at the time of the killing, the purpose of the experts' testimony that they had — that the defendants fit a certain diagnosis; that they are, whatever the expert says, a battered person — they fit the — or fit the diagnosis of a post-traumatic stress disorder, that is only to corroborate the defendants' testimony as to their mental state at the time of the crime. 125 ..... 126 It's really irrelevant, and it would be totally irrelevant to any trial, that the defendants had been abused or that they fit a particular diagnosis of being abused. That's totally irrelevant, unless it corroborates their testimony as to their mental state at the time of the crime. If it doesn't do that, then the fact that they happen to be abused or happen to fit a particular diagnosis is irrelevant. 127 .... 128 And as I look at it, the foundation of the testimony — of the evidence is the defendants' own testimony of that belief [of imminent danger].... 129 (emphasis added). The California Court of Appeal agreed with the trial court's ruling, concluding that the issue was not whether Petitioners were required to testify, but whether the testimony of the relevant witnesses was admissible despite a lack of foundation. 130 Petitioners argue that the state court's decision is at odds with Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605, 92 S.Ct. 1891, 32 L.Ed.2d 358 (1972). We disagree. In Brooks, the Supreme Court invalidated a Tennessee statute that required a criminal defendant who wanted to testify to do so before any other defense witnesses could be presented. Id. at 606, 92 S.Ct. 1891. This case is not at odds with Brooks. 131 Apart from its limited holding, Brooks did not curtail[] in any way the ordinary power of a trial judge to set the order of proof. Id. at 613, 92 S.Ct. 1891; see United States v. Singh, 811 F.2d 758, 762-63 (2d Cir.1987) (trial court may refuse to accept proffered testimony of witnesses until a proper foundation is laid). The critical distinction between Brooks and the present case is that here, both Petitioners had the opportunity, at every stage of the trial, to decide whether or not to take the stand. On the contrary, the statute at issue in Brooks required the defendant to testify before any other witness was presented, lest he waive his right to testify in his own behalf. 406 U.S. at 610-11, 92 S.Ct. 1891. 132 The state court correctly determined that Petitioners' right to decide whether to testify was not the relevant issue. Indeed, Petitioners expressly concede in their opening brief that where [the] foundation can only come from the defendant, such a ruling [that the defendant first lay a foundation] would not violate Brooks.  That is precisely the case here. Only the defendants could testify to whether they believed the peril was imminent. Petitioners' argument is in essence that the trial judge should have kept to himself his views about how the defense could lay a proper foundation. 133 As a matter of state evidence law, a foundation had to be laid before the evidence could be admitted. In Lyle's case, the requisite foundation was not laid. Because Lyle failed to lay a foundation, the testimony of his cousin, Diane Vandermolen, was limited. If allowed, she would have testified that when Lyle was eight years old, he told her his father was molesting him and when Vandermolen told Kitty about this, she dragged Lyle upstairs. In addition, Lyle wanted to introduce an essay he wrote when he was fourteen entitled I Will Change Your Verdict, a story about a man who was put on death row after killing the person who molested his twelve-year-old son. Finally, Lyle sought to introduce testimony of Dr. John Conte, who would have testified that Lyle suffered from Battered Person's Syndrome. 134 Erik, on the other hand, presented some evidence of his state of mind to justify admission of additional evidence, and consequently the evidence he proffered relevant to that foundation was admitted. 9 135 The state court's conclusion that Petitioners' due process rights were not violated was a reasonable interpretation of Brooks. With the benefit of having presided over the case twice, the trial judge knew precisely what evidence the defense had available to lay the requisite foundation. The judge did not require the defendants to take the stand; he merely regulated the admission of evidence, and his commentary as to what evidence might constitute a foundation did not infringe on Petitioners' right to decide whether to testify. The state court's decision was proper, and we thus reject this claim. 136