Whether the deprivation of essential, singular witness testimony supporting an indigent defendant's theory of defense violates the right to compulsory process and a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment and the right against unreasonable discrimination based on financial disability in the criminal justice system

QUESTION PRESENTED Petitioner, who was pro se in his criminal trial on federal fraud offenses, timely requested issuance of a subpoena for an essential witness, his treating psychiatrist who supported the theory of defense that petitioner believed his actions in handling assets of an investment company were necessary to prevent wrongful misappropriation by the company. The district court denied the request, with no explanation; no other witness attested to the facts for which the psychiatrist’s testimony was sought; and the court of appeals affirmed, offering its own view of the need for the witness, stating that petitioner did “not demonstrate[] specific facts or admissible opinions from this witness that show relevancy and necessity.” The question presented is: Because the deprivation of essential, singular witness testimony supporting an indigent defendant’s theory of defense violates the right to compulsory process and a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment and the right against unreasonable discrimination based on financial disability in the criminal justice system, may an appellate court affirm denial of a witness subpoena simply by finding reasons that a district court might have relied on where there is no indication that the district court evaluated discretionary questions of evidentiary admissibility in the first instance? i INTERESTED PARTIES The caption contains the names of all of the parties interested in the proceedings. ii