Opinion ID: 76886
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: De Lisi Failed to Prove His Right to Compulsory Process Was Violated.

Text: 37 Florida argues that the trial court did not violate De Lisi's right to compulsory process, under the Sixth Amendment, when the court quashed De Lisi's subpoenas for White's tax returns. We again agree. Because the tax returns were not material under the deferential standard we employ on habeas review, the trial court did not violate De Lisi's rights when it quashed his subpoena. 38 To establish that the trial court violated his right to compulsory process, De Lisi had to prove that the excluded tax returns were material. Taylor v. Singletary, 122 F.3d 1390, 1395 (11th Cir.1997). De Lisi had to show that the evidence unavailable at trial could [have] reasonably be[en] taken to put the whole case in such a different light as to undermine confidence in the verdict. Id. This standard is more rigorous than the harmless error standard: the constitutional standard for materiality ... imposes a higher burden on the petitioner than the harmless-error standard of Brecht .... Taylor, 122 F.3d at 1394; see also Kyles v. Whitley, 514 U.S. 419, 435-36, 115 S.Ct. 1555, 1566-67, 131 L.Ed.2d 490 (1995). 39 We have already concluded that the limitations on cross-examination regarding White's tax returns and bank records were, at most, harmless error, and De Lisi does not argue that the subpoenaed tax returns would have proved anything different from the precluded cross-examination. Because De Lisi failed to establish harmful error, he necessarily cannot meet the more rigorous standard of materiality. De Lisi was not entitled to habeas relief.