State v. Harrison, 2016 Ohio 7579

Defendant Robert Harrison was convicted after a jury trial for assaulting three women; he appealed the convictions.
Harrison’s girlfriend, Jean Gaines, had been charged in the same incident, tried first, testified, and was acquitted.
At Harrison’s trial, the court outside the jury warned Gaines that testifying untruthfully could lead to perjury charges and jail time, and offered her a public defender to consult before testifying.
Gaines requested and consulted with a public defender and then testified for Harrison’s defense.
Harrison argued on appeal that the court’s perjury admonition intimidated Gaines and substantially interfered with his due-process right to present a defense.
The trial court convicted Harrison; the appellate court reviewed whether the admonition violated Harrison’s right to present witnesses.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a judicial perjury admonition to a defense witness violated defendant's due-process right to present a defense	State: A perjury warning is appropriate and does not bar testimony when given neutrally	Harrison: The admonition was so strong it intimidated Gaines and chilled her testimony, violating due process	The admonition did not violate due process: it was not unduly intimidating, Gaines still testified, and provision of counsel ensured voluntariness

Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14 (1967) (due process right to call witnesses)
Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95 (1972) (unduly strong admonitions can violate rights)
United States v. Pierce, 62 F.3d 818 (6th Cir. 1995) (mere perjury warnings not per se unconstitutional; must show substantial interference)
United States v. Foster, 128 F.3d 949 (6th Cir. 1997) (test for substantial interference with witness testimony)
State v. Halley, 93 Ohio App.3d 71 (10th Dist. 1994) (warning must reach level of intimidation to violate rights)
United States v. Santiago-Becerril, 130 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 1997) (providing counsel helps ensure voluntariness of testimony)