Opinion ID: 181203
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Whether the District Court Chilled Johnson's Right to Testify.

Text: We review de novo allegations of constitutional violations at the trial stage. United States v. Webber, 208 F.3d 545, 550 (6th Cir.2000). The right of a defendant to testify at trial is a constitutional right of fundamental dimension and is subject only to a knowing and voluntary waiver by the defendant. Id. (citing Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 52, 53 n. 10, 107 S.Ct. 2704, 97 L.Ed.2d 37 (1987)). A district court does not chill a defendant's right to testify by warning him about the consequences of perjury and how his testimony may affect sentencing. See United States v. Stuart, 507 F.3d 391, 398 (6th Cir.2007); see also Webber, 208 F.3d at 552-53. Here, Johnson claims that he was dissuaded from testifying when the court remarked how his status as a felon made him less credible than his attorney in the eyes of the court, as well as when the court alerted him that if he testified, the government could question him about past convictions that might have detracted from his credibility in the eyes of the jury. However, the majority of the district court's comments to Johnson merely attempted to explain that, should he choose to testify, the jury would be able to learn of his past convictions, which could potentially damage his credibility. The court also pointed out that testifying would nullify a stipulation agreed upon by the parties that the nature of his prior convictions would not be revealed to the jury, the effect of which could be damning. Furthermore, as in Webber, the district court ultimately informed Johnson that the decision to testify was his to make with his attorney, and gave him additional time to confer with his attorney. While all this may have contributed to Johnson's decision not to testify, it was information that he should have taken into account in making his decision. What is more, the additional time given to Johnson to discuss his decision during a recess enabled him to seek advice from his attorney. It might have been unnecessary for the district court to admonish Johnson that his felonious past made him less credible than his attorney, but a comment like that one does not rise to the level of unconstitutional judicial misconduct in the context of the Sixth Amendment. Cf. United States v. Blood, 435 F.3d 612, 629 (6th Cir.2006) (finding that, in the context of judicial bias, [a]lthough the judge's inquiries exhibited sarcasm and could have been phrased more diplomatically, they primarily evidence the judge's effort to seek additional information from witnesses and not any prejudice or bias against [defendant]). Accordingly, the district court's comments did not chill Johnson's constitutional right to testify.