The DC Court of Appeals in Graves v. U.S., decided on February 25, 2021, addressed and analyzed the constitutional requirements of asserting a self-defense claim and the right to testify unhindered.
Graves was arrested for theft and assault on a police officer as he attempted to leave a liquor store with a bottle unpaid. Defendant argued at trial that the officer had used excessive force in putting him on a choke hold and his fighting back was justified as self-defense to the excessive use of force.
During trial, after reviewing the video footage, the trial Judge sue sponte:
- Foreclosed any testimony pertaining to self-defense in ruling that the officer did not use excessive force; and also
- Essentially abridging defendant’s constitutional rights in preventing any testify pertaining to self-defense.
On appeal, defendant argued that the trial judge violated his constitutional right to present a complete defense by preventing him from testifying as to the self-defense element and to also refute the government’s showing that there was no excessive force.
The Court of Appeals ruled that it was an error to bar any self-defense testimony from the appellant, and that the error was of constitutional caliber because a criminal defendant’s right to testify is a fundamental right and cannot be circumvented.
The due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments guarantee the defendant an opportunity to be heard in his defense as well as the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment — the accused has an absolute right to make his defense by testifying.
Moreover, the fundamental fairness of a criminal trial would be questioned if a defendant is deprived of the right to freely decide whether to testify on his own behalf.
Thus, it is generally a reversible error for the trial judge to persuade or pressure the defendant not to testify, but even more so here, unequivocally prohibiting him from testifying.
In essence, the trial court barred the appellant from testifying as to the right of self-defense when faced with excessive force foreclosing both legal and factual exculpatory evidence.
The judge also did not purport to exclude appellant’s testimony on the ground that it would have been irrelevant or otherwise inadmissible under any rule of evidence, which would have been acceptable, but flat out denied any and all testimony pertaining to self-defense theory of the case.
The error was not harmless as there is a reasonable possibility that the trial court would have been persuaded by the testimony of use of excessive force and commensurate self-defense response negating the assault charge.
Refer to our Washington DC Assault page for more detailed information on this subject.