>>Not allowing the defense witnesses is a DIRECT violation of Amendment 6.
>
>How about witnesses that claimed that Bush was responsible for 9/11? Should Lakin be allowed to call them?
“Objection! Relevance.” — ;)
But seriously, yes; to disallow someone to call witnesses — or to be called AS a witness — based on their political views can [rather easily] condemn the innocent and free the guilty.
Imagine that you were minding your own business, driving through a little “hickville” town that happened to be having a Truther Convention and your car guns out of gas, so you decide to walk the several blocks to Bubba’s Gas Station and buy a gas-can and some gas to get your car started and to the pump so you can fuel-up. On your way you stumble upon a guy who was murdered and are snapped up by the police because you happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.
Now lets assume that your trial date comes and everyone you attempt to call to the stand, the people you bumped into and asked for directions to the gas station, is refused to be allowed on the stand because they’re a bunch of nutball truthers. (You were in the middle of a truther convention, after all.)
Ah, sucks to be you, doesn’t it?
**********************************************
Now, in a world where people are allowed to call witnesses for their defense you could easily produce random people from that crowd to witness to your innocence; they saw & talked to you at the time of the murder. And so the jury may make an informed decision.
The same question that can be asked of Obama's eligibility. His legitimacy or illegitimacy as president is irrelevant to the charges that Lakin is facing.