” Gilmore v. Armontrout, 861 F.2d 1061, 1073 (8th Cir.1988) (quoting Zant v. Stephens, 462 U.S. 862, 885, 103 S.Ct. 2733, 77 L.Ed.2d 235 (1983)). Here, the trial court determined that the relevance of Whitehorn’s testimony outweighed its prejudicial effect. We cannot say that this determination constituted error, much less error that was so prejudicial as to fatally infect the outcome of the trial. Richardson also contends that the court violated the Sixth Amendment by not allowing him to present the testimony of his guilt-phase counsel that she did not see Richardson threaten Whitehorn. The Sixth Amendment does not guarantee, however, that criminal defendants may call every witness they choose. See United States v. Scheffer, 523 U.S. 303, 118 S.Ct. 1261, 1264, 140 L.Ed.2d 413 (1998) (<HOLDING>). A defendant “does not have an unfettered
recognizing that criminal defendants right to testify is subject to crossexamination holding that treating a defendants failure to appear as a waiver not only of the right to be present but of the right to have a hearing on the motion was error holding that a defendants right to present relevant evidence is not unlimited but rather is subject to reasonable restrictions holding that due process right to present a defense is subject to forfeiture if not properly asserted in the trial court holding that the omission of an element is not a structural error subject to automatic reversal but rather  where objected to  is subject to harmless error analysis