Can a defendant's right to present a complete defense be violated by the arbitrary and disproportionate application of a general evidentiary standard when it infringes a weighty interest of the accused, such as negating the mens rea element of the offense, or only where there is a 'categorical prohibition of certain evidence'

QUESTION PRESENTED FOR REVIEW The Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees a right to “a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense.” Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 690 (1986) (quoting California v. Trombetta, 467 U.S. 479, 485 (1984)). Decisions from the Court hold that the right to present one’s own witnesses to establish a defense ranks as a “fundamental element of due process of law.” Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 (1967); see also Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302 (1973); Crane, 476 U.S. at 690; Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 55 (1987); Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 324 (2006). The Court has held—and most circuits recognize—that a trial court violates this right when the exclusion of reliable evidence “anfringe[s] upon a weighty interest of the accused” and is “arbitrary’ or ‘disproportionate to the purposes [the rule of evidence] are designed to serve.” United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 308 (1998) (quoting Rock, 483 U.S. at 56); see also Holmes, 547 U.S. at 324; Kubsch v. Neal, 838 F.3d 845, 862 (7th Cir. 2016) (en banc). Or, as Chambers held, the exclusion of “critical,” “trustworthy” evidence “directly affecting the ascertainment of guilt” based on “mechanistic[ ]” application of an otherwise valid rule of evidence violates a defendant’s due process rights. 410 U.S. at 302. iii The question presented is: Can a defendant’s right to present a complete defense be violated by the arbitrary and disproportionate application of a general evidentiary standard when it infringes a weighty interest of the accused, such as negating the mens rea element of the offense, or only where there is a “categorical prohibition of certain evidence,” as the Fifth Circuit holds?! 1 This question is also raised in the petition for writ of certiorari in Lucio v. Lumpkin, No. 21-5095, pending before the Court. iv No. In the Supreme Court of the United States MICHAEL HERMAN, PETITIONER, V. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, RESPONDENT PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Petitioner Michael Herman asks that a writ of certiorari issue to review the opinion and judgment entered by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit on May 6, 2021.