Opinion ID: 2383290
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: The desire of the movant to present the defendant's testimony.

Text: Beginning with his pretrial motion and continuing throughout the trial, Martin urged the judge to grant a severance and, eventually, a mistrial to enable him to present Brandon's testimony. Indeed, the undiminished intensity with which his counsel pressed the point became discernably irritating to the judge. After the judge declined to order a mistrial, Martin's counsel requested that the prosecutor grant Brandon immunity so that Brandon could become a defense witness. Counsel also asked that the judge order the government to go through [unspecified] procedures to bring this about. [24] The judge declined to involve himself in the matter, however, stating that he lacked authority and that it's not appropriate in this case because, frankly, I think that Mr. Brandon lied during his plea proceeding. When neither a mistrial nor a grant of immunity was forthcoming, Martin's counsel requested that Mr. Brandon's plea statement taken under oath be admitted as evidence in this case and disclosed to the jury. The judge ruled, however, that the testimony was inadmissible because the prosecution had not had an opportunity to cross-examine Brandon. [25] It is difficult to conceive of a case in which a defendant attempted more consistently and more vigorously to present his codefendant's testimony. The record is thus favorable to Martin with respect to the second Jackson criterion.