Opinion ID: 2709694
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Parker’s Right to Call Defense Witnesses

Text: Parker argues that she was deprived of her right to offer the testimony of witnesses and compel their attendance. She submits that “she was deprived of her right No. 12-1991 21 to call witnesses in her defenses based on a confusing set of circumstances relating to who was ultimately responsible for getting those witnesses to court.” A defendant has a Sixth Amendment right to present witnesses in her defense. United States v. George, 363 F.3d 666, 670 (7th Cir. 2004). But “the right is not unlimited. The defendant ‘must comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability.’ ” Harris v. Thompson, 698 F.3d 609, 626 (7th Cir. 2012) (quoting Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 (1973)), petition for cert. filed 81 U.S.L.W. 3421 (U.S. Jan. 16, 2013) (No. 12-885). A defendant’s right to compulsory process is violated “only when a court denies the defendant an opportunity to secure the appearance at trial of a witness ‘whose testimony would have been relevant and material to the defense.’ ” United States v. Williamson, 202 F.3d 974, 979 (7th Cir. 2000) (quoting Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 23 (1967)). The record establishes that Parker was not denied the opportunity to present witnesses in her defense or compel their attendance at trial. The district court did not prohibit Parker from calling witnesses and securing their appearance at trial. On September 7, 2011, Parker decided to represent herself, and the court asked Attorney Kennedy, who had been her counsel, to be standby counsel. The court explained to Parker at the hearing that she “will be in charge. . . . [Standby counsel] is there to offer any assistance or advice that you might ask for. But the decisions about the case will be made by you, and you will be proceeding to represent yourself 22 No. 12-1991 at trial.” It wasn’t until after trial commenced and Parker had given an opening statement that Parker requested representation by counsel, and standby counsel was appointed to represent her. Thus, for two months leading right up to trial, Parker was in charge of preparing her own defense and, consequently, of issuing subpoenas to witnesses in her defense. She did not, however, subpoena any witnesses. The court offered Parker a brief continuance in order to find her witnesses and get them into court. But before Parker could take advantage of that opportunity, her counsel requested a brief recess to allow him to consult with Parker, which was granted, and counsel and Parker discussed the matter. “An attorney . . . has a duty to consult with the client regarding important decisions, including questions of overarching defense strategy,” Florida v. Nixon, 543 U.S. 175, 187 (2004), but counsel is not required “to obtain the defendant’s consent to ‘every tactical decision,’ ” id. (quoting Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 417-18 (1988) (an attorney has authority to manage most aspects of the defense without obtaining the client’s approval)). A “lawyer’s decision to call or not to call a witness is a strategic decision generally not subject to review. The Constitution does not oblige counsel to present each and every witness that is suggested to him.” United States v. Best, 426 F.3d 937, 945 (7th Cir. 2005) (quoting United States v. Williams, 106 F.3d 1362, 1367 (7th Cir. 1997)). Indeed, Parker acknowledges that the decision whether to call a witness was her attorney’s to make. No. 12-1991 23 Of course, whether to testify in her own defense was Parker’s decision to make. But whether to call any other witnesses was her lawyer’s decision. The record shows that Parker’s attorney consulted with her about whether to call any other witnesses and he decided against it. The attorney explained on the record that in another case, he had called a witness his client wanted to testify, and “watched that whole case fall apart.” He was “not inclined to do it again.” Thus, the record establishes that Parker was not deprived of her constitutional right to present witnesses in her defense or to compel their attendance at trial.