Harris v. Thompson

Dist. Ct. erred in denying defendant’s habeas petition challenging her murder conviction on grounds that state trial court improperly excluded proposed testimony of defendant’s six-year-old son, where trial court ultimately found that said son was incompetent to testify. Exclusion of said witness violated Compulsory Process Clause of Sixth Amendment where son’s proffered testimony that death of victim (defendant’s other son) was accident when: (1) said son provided best evidence of defendant’s innocence; (2) trial court improperly placed on defendant burden of proving competency of her son; and (3) trial court’s concerns about son’s age-appropriate beliefs in mythical or fictional characters and son’s response to confusing question from trial court did not reliably indicate that son’s testimony was likely to be unreliable. Ct. further found defendant’s trial counsel was ineffective for failing to adequately prepare defendant’s son for competency hearing or present exculpatory evidence from known investigator to counter claim that son had trouble distinguishing fantasy from fiction.