defendant to establish defense in District of Columbia

1983“The right of a defendant to establish a defense by presenting his own witnesses is a fundamental element of due process of law.” United States v. Simmons, 216 U.S.App.D.C. 207, 210 , 670 F.2d 365, 368 (1982) (per curiam) (citing Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1923 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)), aff’d following remand, 226 U.S.App.D.C. 98 , 699 F.2d 1250 (1983).

1983“The right of a defendant to establish a defense by presenting his own witnesses is a fundamental element of due process of law.” United States v. Simmons, 216 U.S.App.D.C. 207, 210 , 670 F.2d 365, 368 (1982) (per curiam) (citing Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920, 1923 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)), aff’d following remand, 226 U.S.App.D.C. 98 , 699 F.2d 1250 (1983).

2009Serrano, supra note 8 , 406 F.3d at 1215 (citing Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 18-19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)); see also Washington v. Schriver, 255 F.3d 45, 56 (2d Cir.2001) ("The right to call witnesses in order to present a meaningful defense at a criminal trial is a fundamental constitutional right secured by both the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.") (citing Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 408-09 , 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988)) (other citations omitted); Brown v. United States, 864 A.2d

2009Cf. Berkow v. Lucy Webb Hayes Nat’l Training Sch. for Deaconesses & Missionaries Conducting Sibley Mem’l Hosp., 841 A.2d 776, 780 (D.C.2004) (re *194 jecting plaintiffs claim that he should have been permitted to rely on an examination of the defendant to establish the standard of care because, among other things, he “never notified the defendants that he intended to do so”).

2009Moreover, “there is no record basis ... for believing that [Coulter] could have used [Dr. Asomani] to establish the standard of care and defendants’ departure from it.” Id.

2009Serrano, supra note 8 , 406 F.3d at 1215 (citing Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 18-19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)); see also Washington v. Schriver, 255 F.3d 45, 56 (2d Cir.2001) ("The right to call witnesses in order to present a meaningful defense at a criminal trial is a fundamental constitutional right secured by both the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.") (citing Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 408-09 , 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988)) (other citations omitted); Brown v. United States, 864 A.2d

2009United States v. Williams, 205 F.3d 23, 29 (2d Cir.2000) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). 11 .

2009Serrano, supra note 8 , 406 F.3d at 1215 (citing Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 18-19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)); see also Washington v. Schriver, 255 F.3d 45, 56 (2d Cir.2001) ("The right to call witnesses in order to present a meaningful defense at a criminal trial is a fundamental constitutional right secured by both the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.") (citing Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 408-09 , 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988)) (other citations omitted); Brown v. United States, 864 A.2d

2009Serrano, supra note 8 , 406 F.3d at 1215 (citing Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 18-19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)); see also Washington v. Schriver, 255 F.3d 45, 56 (2d Cir.2001) ("The right to call witnesses in order to present a meaningful defense at a criminal trial is a fundamental constitutional right secured by both the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.") (citing Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 408-09 , 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988)) (other citations omitted); Brown v. United States, 864 A.2d

2009Serrano, supra note 8 , 406 F.3d at 1215 (citing Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 18-19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)); see also Washington v. Schriver, 255 F.3d 45, 56 (2d Cir.2001) ("The right to call witnesses in order to present a meaningful defense at a criminal trial is a fundamental constitutional right secured by both the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.") (citing Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 408-09 , 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988)) (other citations omitted); Brown v. United States, 864 A.2d

2009Serrano, supra note 8 , 406 F.3d at 1215 (citing Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 18-19 , 87 S.Ct. 1920 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967)); see also Washington v. Schriver, 255 F.3d 45, 56 (2d Cir.2001) ("The right to call witnesses in order to present a meaningful defense at a criminal trial is a fundamental constitutional right secured by both the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.") (citing Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 408-09 , 108 S.Ct. 646 , 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988)) (other citations omitted); Brown v. United States, 864 A.2d

1984See, e.g., Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95 , 93 S.Ct. 351 , 34 L.Ed.2d 330 (1972); United States v. Smith, 156 U.S. App.D.C. 66, 478 F.2d 976 (1973).

1984See, e.g., Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95 , 93 S.Ct. 351 , 34 L.Ed.2d 330 (1972); United States v. Smith, 156 U.S. App.D.C. 66, 478 F.2d 976 (1973).

1977The burden on the defendant to establish his claim of ineffective assistance of counsel is heavy for “the threshold for constitutional ineffectiveness remains at a level sufficient only to cure exceptional cases.” Angarano v. United States, D.C.App., 312 A.2d 295, 299 (1973).