Accordingly, our review is de novo. See Fortini, 257 F.3d at 47. At first blush, this “involuntary waiver” claim may seem like nothing more than a recasting of the competence claim. But competence and voluntariness are separate (though complementary) inquiries. “The focus of a competency inquiry is the defendant’s mental capacity” whereas the focus of a voluntariness inquiry is on “whether the defendant actually does understand the significance and consequences of a particular decision and whether the decision is uncoerced.” Godinez v. Moran, 509 U.S. 389, 401 n. 12, 113 S.Ct. 2680, 125 L.Ed.2d 321 (1993). Although the right to present a defense is of constitutional dimension, it is not absolute. See, e.g., Nix v. Whiteside, 475 U.S. 157, 173, 106 S.Ct. 988, 89 L.Ed.2d 123 (1986) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Supreme Court has tended to
holding that exclusionary rule does not extend to proceedings other than criminal trials holding that rule b attachment does not extend to afteracquired property recognizing that the right does not extend to committing perjury holding that common law right does not extend to videotape of rule 15 deponents testimony holding that the tucker acts waiver does not extend to statutory claims