Court Opinion

ID: 9573063
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 20:47:26.071023+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:36:40.844330
License: Public Domain

LANE, Judge,
concurring in results.
I join Judge Lumpkin in his special vote in this matter. In addition I would find that Brooks v. Tennessee, 406 U.S. 605, 92 S.Ct. 1891, 32 L.Ed.2d 358 (1972) has no application to OMahoma. It is authority for the premise that it would be unconstitutional to require a defendant to testify before he can present evidence. Brooks can be distinguished from the present case from a factual standpoint. In Brooks, Tennessee required a defendant to testify first in his case in chief if the rule as to sequestration of witnesses had been invoked. If he did not testify first he could not testify at all, because he would have violated the rule by being present in the court room when his other witnesses testified. OMahoma has never extended its rule on sequestration that far. I would limit Brooks to its facts and find that it has no application to OMahoma.