Constitutional right to present a defense

QUESTION PRESENTED This case squarely addresses the constitutional right to present a defense. Absent this Court’s intervention, Mr. Matthews will be precluded from presenting any testimony regarding the single most important piece of evidence that supports his claim of self-defense. It is undisputed that Colton Matthews was working at his father’s business when Joseph Williams entered. Williams was hostile and argumentative, Mr. Matthews attempted to diffuse the situation and when this was unsuccessful, he escorted Williams out of the business and to his car. It is also undisputed that Williams threatened to kill Mr. Matthews, reached into his car, opened the middle console and then quickly turned toward Mr. Matthews. Believing Williams had retrieved a gun and was about to make good on his threat to kill him, Mr. Matthews shot Williams one time. Mr. Matthews has consistently maintained that he shot Williams in self-defense. When law enforcement arrived, they observed that the middle console in Williams’ vehicle was open and when they searched the vehicle, they found a gun in the middle console. Over Mr. Matthews’ objection, the State successfully moved to exclude “all evidence” of the gun found in the middle console of Williams’ vehicle. Ignoring Chambers v. Mississippi and its progeny, the Louisiana Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s ruling excluding all evidence of the gun. The following question arises: 1) Under the unique facts and circumstances of this self-defense case, does exclusion of any evidence regarding u the gun found in the open center console of Williams’ vehicle create a false and misleading impression to the jury, violate due process, violate the right to a fair trial and violate the constitutional right to present a defense?