Cited by

2528 , 81 L.Ed.2d 413 (1984)

(“The right to confront and to cross-examine is not absolute” and the district court has “wide latitude .

“Although the right to present witnesses is constitutionally protected, the accused ‘must comply with established rules of procedure and evidence....’” (quoting Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 , 93 S.Ct.

d 267, 277 (Minn. 2003) (“Due process requires that every defendant be ‘afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’ ” ()), accord U.S. Const. amend.

cause, as a pro se litigant, he was unaware of the rules of evidence, he did not know how to present evidence, and he “was held to the strictest standards of procedural rules and processes.” “Under our system of jurisprudence, every criminal defendant has the right to be treated with fundamental fairness and afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” (quotation omitted).

State v. 5 Richards, (citing California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485, 104 S. Ct. 2528, 2532 (1984)); see U.S. Const. amend.

DECISION I. Under the due process clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, section 7 of the Minnesota Constitution “every criminal defendant has the right to be treated with fundamental fairness and ‘afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’” (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485, 104 S. Ct. 2528, 2532, (1984)).

(describing a defendant’s constitutional right to present a complete defense).

XIV, § 1; Minn. Const. art. I, § 7; (citing California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485, 104 S. Ct. 2528, 2532 (1984)).

(stating that district court has discretion to set time limit on closing argument).

Due process requires that every defendant be “afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.”

But, in developing their own version of the facts, defendants “must comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.” (quotation omitted).

Due process requires that every defendant be “ ‘afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’” (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct.

In presenting a defense, the accused “must comply with established rules of procedure and evidence.” (quotation omitted).

.” see Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U.S. 98, 113 (1977) (“The standard, after all, is that of fairness as required by the Due Process Clause of the 4 Hill did not raise this argument in the district court.

603(b); (“The witness must be given a prior opportunity to admit, deny or explain the inconsistency in order for the statement to be admissible to impeach the witness.”); (“[The witness] was not confronted with these statements on cross-examination, so this extrinsic evidence was properly excluded.”).

Evidentiary rulings A defendant has a constitutional right “to present a complete defense.” (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485, 104 S.Ct.

(“[T]he accused ‘must comply with established rules of procedure and evidence designed to assure both fairness and reliability in the ascertainment of guilt and innocence.’ ” (quoting Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 , 93 S.Ct.

(citing California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485, 104 S. Ct. 2528, 2532 (1984)).

Fordyce points to the federal and state constitutions and his right under them “to present a complete defense.” See California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485, 104 S. Ct. 2528, 2532 (1984)

The due process guaranteed by the United States and Minnesota Constitutions requires that a criminal defendant be “afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” (quotation omitted).

Due process guaranteed by the United States and Minnesota Constitutions requires that a criminal defendant be “ ‘afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’ ” (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct.

(citing United States v. Bednar, 728 F.2d 1043, 1049 (8th Cir.1984)); -13 (Minn.1984).

*583 Due process requires that every criminal defendant be “ ‘afforded a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.’ ” (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 , 104 S.Ct.