Opinion ID: 2174543
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Right to Present an Effective Defense.

Text: Defendant also claims he was denied the right to present an effective defense. As the United States Supreme Court has made clear, [t]he rights to confront and cross-examine witnesses and to call witnesses in one's own behalf have long been recognized as essential to due process. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 294, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1045, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973). Defendant claims he was denied both of these fundamental rights when the trial court imposed the following limitations on the conduct of the proceedings. Defendant was not allowed to call his own tax and accounting experts to counter the state's theory regarding his motive to kill Stratton. Because the state was not seeking to litigate the tax matters within this murder trial, only the existence of the investigation, not its conclusion, was relevant. Defendant was not allowed to call as a witness an accountant from Coopers & Lybrand, the accounting firm that performed an audit on which one of the state's experts based his testimony. Because defendant could not make an offer of proof to challenge the accuracy of the audit documents, the judge refused to let him go on a fishing expedition. DNA expert Dr. Edward Blake was not permitted to take the witness stand to testify that tissue found under Stratton's fingernails did not come from defendant, but rather was Stratton's own tissue, indicating that Stratton did not scratch defendant. The prosecution, however, never argued that scratches found on defendant's body after his arrest were caused by Stratton. Furthermore, Dr. Blake's testimony would only have confirmed a conclusion drawn by the state's expert. Finally, Dr. Blake's test results were later entered into evidence through the testimony of another defense expert. Defendant's serological expert was allowed to testify, but the judge would not let her critique the methods used by the state's expert where they both reached the same results. The defense was precluded from introducing evidence of cocaine found in Stratton's body at the autopsy because no offer of proof was made as to its relevance. Defendant was not permitted to call Sergeant Robert Nelson to the stand to question him about false information in his affidavit supporting the search warrant for 1707 2nd Avenue North. Defendant cross-examined Nelson over the course of four days during which he could have asked about the affidavit. Furthermore, the appropriate time to challenge an affidavit in support of a search warrant is at the omnibus hearing. See State v. Luciow, 308 Minn. 6, 240 N.W.2d 833 (1976). Defendant was not allowed to call Ron Adler and Bob Bernick, two investigators assigned to the case by the county attorney. Adler was cross-examined extensively during the state's case-in-chief. Thereafter, defendant indicated that he wanted the opportunity to ask questions outside the scope of the direct examination, but failed to make an offer of proof to justify recalling Adler. Defendant's offer of proof concerning Bernick's expected testimony revealed that defendant was on a fishing expedition: We are investigating, that's all. Defendant complains that he was not able to question fully investigating officer Mark Ellenberg. A limited offer of proof had been made as to this witness regarding cigarettes found at the scene, so questioning was restricted to that limited area. The court previously determined that only two of the four investigating officers needed to be allowed to testify pursuant to this limited offer of proof. The defense was not permitted to call Michelle Bateson and Jerry McFarland, two of the four officers who arrested notary public Marilyn Whaley, because their testimony would have been cumulative of that already given by Sergeants Nelson and Snobeck. The defense was not permitted to call Jill Seachrist and Bonnie Martz, both of whom were expected to testify about prior statements made to them by Linda Winbush which were inconsistent with her trial testimony. Extrinsic evidence of a prior inconsistent statement by a witness cannot be admitted unless that witness is afforded a prior opportunity to explain or deny. Minn.R.Evid. 613(b). Winbush was not confronted with these statements on cross-examination, so this extrinsic evidence was properly excluded. [4] The court struck Dale Sizemore from the defense witness list when defendant admitted that he did not know Sizemore's whereabouts and had not subpoenaed him. The court allowed the name of Robert McGuire, an attorney with whom Stratton held a deposition on the morning of February 23, 1987, to be placed on the defense witness list. Later, McGuire and Patsy Boles, the client who had been deposed, were stricken following inadequate offers of proof. The court similarly struck Stratton's sister and several of his friends who were expected to testify as to Stratton's demeanor prior to his death. Edwin Elmer was stricken from the defense witness list. He was expected to testify about Myra Montgomery, her patterns of truthfulness, her reputation for such, and the reasons why she stopped being on that premise. Montgomery was the first witness called by the defense. It is not clear from the record whether Elmer's testimony was being offered by the defense to impeach its own witness or to bolster her credibility. If it was the latter, such testimony was inadmissible because Montgomery's character for truthfulness had not been attacked. Minn.R.Evid. 608(a). Defendant was not allowed to call the tailor who made the pants he was wearing at the time of his arrest. He wanted to prove through this witness that he could not have fit into the pair of bloody jeans later found at the scene. Because both the pants and jeans were in evidence, the jurors were capable of making their own size comparison. Expert testimony was not necessary. See Minn.R.Evid. 702. Defendant further asserts that the trial court terminated his direct examination of three defense witnesses. During Myra Montgomery's direct examination, the court warned defendant that he could ask ten more questions. After defendant persisted in asking irrelevant and argumentative questions, the court cut him off. He was, however, permitted to question this witness on re-direct until he indicated he had nothing further. The direct examination of the other two witnesses was not terminated by the court. The judge cautioned defendant that he could ask five more questions of David Baker and three more relevant questions of Duane Ittner. Nevertheless, defendant was permitted to continue with both witnesses until indicating he had no further questions. The right to offer the testimony of witnesses    is in plain terms the right to present a defense, the right to present the defendant's version of the facts as well as the prosecution's to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies. Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1923, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). Recognizing the importance of this right, this court has frowned on the practice of limiting the number of witnesses at trial. We approve of the rule that upon the vital controverted issue in a case the trial court should refrain from any attempt to limit the number of the witnesses that a party may offer, unless a purpose to trifle with the administration of justice becomes apparent. State v. Randall, 143 Minn. 203, 209, 173 N.W. 425, 428 (1919). It follows, therefore, that if witnesses are offered for the purpose of testifying about collateral matters or to impede the judicial process, the trial court then is justified in placing limitations on their number. While it is true that a significant number of defense witnesses were stricken, the process employed by the court was neither arbitrary nor mechanical. The judge proceeded down the defense witness list in an orderly manner and asked for an offer of proof as to each person named. If defendant made an inadequate offer, admitted he had no idea of what the witness would say, or indicated that a witness' whereabouts were unknown, then that witness was stricken. Although the right to present witnesses is constitutionally protected, the accused must comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence. Chambers, 410 U.S. at 302, 93 S.Ct. at 1049. These same principles should guide the court in reasonably controlling the trial process. See Minn.R.Evid. 611(a). It was well within the discretion of the trial judge to regulate the presentation and direct examination of the defense witnesses. See Batsell v. United States, 403 F.2d 395, 401 (8th Cir.1968). Finally, defendant claims that his cross-examination of seven of the state's witnesses was prematurely halted by the court. During the omnibus hearing, defendant was told he had ten minutes to complete his cross-examination of Sergeant Snobeck. He was cut off when he continued to ask objectionable questions. Sergeant Nelson's omnibus cross-examination spanned two days. Defendant was cut off when he refused to ask any more questions without consulting his advisory counsel. Defendant was told he could call Nelson as his own witness and he later did so. Defendant's direct, not cross, examination of Linda Winbush at the omnibus hearing was halted at 1:15 a.m., after 4½ hours of questioning. At the trial, the court warned defendant that he had ten more questions to ask of Sergeant Nelson on cross-examination. After permitting more than ten questions, the court finally cut defendant off, but did not limit him on re-cross. Defendant's cross-examination of Jim Diracles was lengthy relative to the state's direct. After advising defendant that he had ten more questions, the court cut him off. The cross-examination of Paul Walsh lasted for parts of three days. The judge warned defendant that he had about ten questions left before terminating the cross-examination. Karen Preston testified briefly for the state, but her cross-examination was lengthy. The defense was told it had two more questions before being cut off. Defendant does not complain that he was prevented from cross-examining the state's witnesses, but rather complains that his questioning was terminated before he was finished. The judge was under no obligation to permit Richards to cross-examine a witness indefinitely. [T]he right to confront and to cross-examine is not absolute and may, in appropriate cases, bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process. Chambers, 410 U.S. at 295, 93 S.Ct. at 1046. [T]rial judges retain wide latitude insofar as the Confrontation Clause is concerned to impose reasonable limits on such cross-examination based on concerns about, among other things, harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues, the witness' safety, or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant. Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 679, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 1435, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986).