By Connie Reguli, J.D.

As a family law attorney defending parents against over aggressive state agencies for three decades, I have always worked with parents on how to defend themselves in court. These days, parents contact me from all over the country and say that their court-appointed attorneys are not preparing them for court and are not even allowing them to speak in the courtroom. Parents, sadly, do not have all of the constitutional protections that are provided to criminals, like Miranda rights and the right to confront their accuser, however, the ability to speak and be heard in dependency cases is precious and paramount to winning for parents.

On May 10, 2024, the Kansas Supreme Court released an opinion in the criminal case of State of Kansas v. John R. Cantu which found that the trial court judge had denied the constitutional rights of criminal defendant Cantu by removing him from the witness stand and striking his testimony. Cantu’s convictions were reversed.

This case is worth the read, and begins like this:

Cantu was convicted by the jury and sentenced to 24 months in prison. Thankfully, Cantu and a brave attorney filed on appeal raising the issue that “the court’s decision to strike his entire testimony from the record deprived him of his constitutional right to testify, which was structural error requiring automatic reversal.”

The Cantu opinion explains the right to testify and provides a history of precedential opinions:

The right to testify on one’s own behalf at a criminal trial is a fundamental right grounded in multiple provisions of the United States Constitution. Rock v. Arkansas, 483 U.S. 44, 49-55, 107 S. Ct. 2704, 97 L. Ed. 2d 37 (1987); Ferguson v. Georgia, 365 U.S. 570, 582, 81 S. Ct. 756, 5 L. Ed. 2d 783 (1961). In Rock v. Arkansas, the United States Supreme Court found this right is guaranteed by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Compulsory Process Clause of the Sixth Amendment, and necessarily implied by the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. 483 U.S. at 51-53. These constitutional provisions apply to state proceedings through the Fourteenth Amendment. See Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 17-19, 87 S. Ct. 1920, 18 L. Ed. 2d 1019 (1967) (incorporating the Sixth Amendment Compulsory Process Clause); Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1, 6, 84 S. Ct. 1489, 12 L. Ed. 2d 653 (1964) (incorporating the Fifth Amendment’s protection against compelled self-incrimination).

At its most basic level, the right to testify allows a defendant to respond directly to the State’s charges by “present[ing] his own version of events in his own words.” Rock, 483 U.S. at 52. Thus, the Court has identified the right to testify as one in a bundle of minimum due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment that are essential to a fair trial. Rock, 483 U.S. at 51 (listing a criminal defendant’s basic due process rights at trial as including, at a minimum, the right to confront witnesses, to offer testimony, and to be represented by counsel) (quoting In re Oliver, 333 U.S. 257, 273, 68 S. Ct. 499, 92 L. Ed. 682 [1948]).

The Court has also found the right to testify derives from the Sixth Amendment’s Compulsory Process Clause, which grants a defendant the right to call favorable, material witnesses. Rock, 483 U.S. at 52 (noting “the most important witness for the defense in many criminal cases is the defendant himself”). In this way, the Court recognized the right to testify is part of the broader personal right to present a defense, designating it as even more fundamental than the right of self-representation. 483 U.S. at 52 (citing Faretta v. California, 422 U.S. 806, 819, 95 S. Ct. 2525, 45 L. Ed. 2d 562 [1975]).

Finally, the Court has interpreted the Fifth Amendment’s privilege against self-incrimination as implying an affirmative right to testify. Rock, 483 U.S. at 52-53 (“’Every criminal defendant is privileged to testify in his own defense, or to refuse to do so.’”) (quoting Harris v. New York, 401 U.S. 222, 230, 91 S. Ct. 643, 28 L. Ed. 2d 1 [1971]).

FOR CANTU, THIS WAS NOT A HARMLESS ERROR.

The appellate court held that denying the right to testify was a constitutional error, but it was harmless. The Kansas Supreme Court said that “structural errors” occur where the error at issue compromised the fundamental fairness of the trial mechanism, both from the perspective of the court’s function and the defendant’s right to due process. In this case, the judge’s decision to remove Cantu from the witness stand and strike his entire testimony was a structural and reversible error.

The Court largely relied on the analysis provided by the United States Supreme Court in Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 343 (1970) which permitted the removal of the defendant from the courtroom for disruptive behavior, but cautioned that even “once lost, the right to be present can, of course, be reclaimed as soon as the defendant is willing to conduct himself consistently with the decorum and respect inherent in the concept of courts and judicial proceedings.” The Cantu opinion concluded that courts are to ‘indulge every reasonable presumption against the loss of a defendant’s constitutional rights.” Citing Allen.

WHY IT MATTERS

This case provides a detailed analysis of the constitutional right to testify in order to defend oneself, however, there is an element of the jury trial process that is ignored in this opinion. That is the effect on the jury of the judge’s arrogant and corporal treatment of the defendant in the courtroom. The jury enters into the criminal justice process believing that it will be fair and honest and that the judge is the person in the room with the greatest intelligence, the most deference to the constitutional rights of the defendant, and the most empowered by the people. In many ways this is incorrect and often the judges are NOT the most intelligent in the room, however that is not the point today. When the jury experiences a judge criticizing a witness or defendant in the courtroom, it makes a distinct negative psychological impact on their impression of the person testifying. Judges know this. You can see it in your observations of them. I have seen it myself.

Cantu is important and the ruling here should race across the country to apply to criminal and dependency cases. After all, dependency cases are quasi-criminal and each parent is facing allegations that are also defined in the criminal code. The results are similar. While a criminal court can take away your freedom, a dependency court can separate you from your children forever, remove their lineage, and take away their birth name. Both are devastating.

Connie Reguli, J.D. worked with families for three decades in Tennessee until falsely charged with a fake crime invented by a corrupt judge and district attorney. Those charges were reversed and a civil rights lawsuit has been filed. Reguli et al, v. Hetzel, et al, Case No. 3:24-cv-00541. Follow on Facebook, YouTube, TikTok, LinkedIn, and Instagram for more. Facebook. Connie Reguli and Family Forward Project.