Does the Eighth Amendment prohibit preventing live mitigation testimony in a capital case based solely on financial considerations, and does video testimony with significant technical difficulties violate a defendant's right to meaningful mitigation evidence presentation?

**CAPITAL CASE** During the sentencing proceeding before a jury in this Oklahoma capital case, the indigent Petitioner sought funds from the trial court to transport several mitigation witnesses from out of state. The trial court denied this request based upon a district court rule allowing for videoconferencing as “a more reliable, safe and cost-effective way to procure the witnesses’ testimony.” Of the sixteen witnesses in mitigation called by the Petitioner, seven testified via videoconference which was replete with technical difficulties such as video/audio lag, audio/video freezeups, video out of sync with audio, muted audio, and limited field of view by the witness who could not see the accused; and including one witness who was at his loud workplace and literally had to leave and finish his testimony from his pickup truck in the parking lot. The questions presented are: 1. Does the Eighth Amendment allow the State to prevent live mitigation testimony in favor of a capital defendant based upon financial reasons alone (this was not a COVID case)? 2. Ifso, does Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978) mandate the meaningful presentation of mitigation testimony by the defense; and, if so, does video testimony subject to extensive technical difficulties that blunted the impact of the testimony deprive the defendant of his right to meaningfully present mitigation evidence? i