Description

In all jurisdictions, a trial court’s exclusion of relevant, material evidence proffered by a defendant is reversible error under applicable statutes or rules of court or as a matter of common-law practice. See, e.g., United States v. Barrow, 109 F.4th 521 (D.C. Cir. 2024); United States v. Yarbrough, 527 F.3d 1092 (10th Cir. 2008); State v. Santoro, 2024 MT 136, 417 Mont. 92, 551 P.3d 822 (2024); Commonwealth v. Molina, 2019 WL 2323825 (Pa. Super. 2019); Brown v. State, 227 So.3d 185 (Fla. App. 2017); State v. G.R.M., 272 Or. App. 737, 358 P.3d 301 (2015). It may also violate the defendant’s federal and state constitutional rights to present a defense. “Whether rooted directly in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, . . . or in the Compulsory Process or Confrontation clauses of the Sixth Amendment, . . . the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants ‘a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’” Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986). As the Court made clear in Crane, the constitutional right to present a defense operates as a limitation upon state evidentiary rules and courtroom practices that unduly restrict the presentation of defensive proof.

First Page

1683

Source Publication

Trial Manual 11 for the Defense of Criminal Cases

Source Editors/Authors

Anthony G. Amsterdam, Randy A. Hertz

Publication Date

2026

Document Type

Chapter

Edition

11

Rights & Restrictions

CC BY-NC-ND 4.0, https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/

Download

Share

COinS