testimony that is incompetent, privileged, or otherwise inadmissible under standard rules of evidence”) (citation omitted); United States v. Libby, 475 F.Supp.2d 73, 90-91 (D.D.C. 2007) (“although the Constitution entitles a defendant an opportunity to present his version of the facts ... to the jury so it may decide where the truth lies, that guarantee extends only to relevant evidence,” and also is “subject to reasonable restrictions, including restrictions imposed by the other rules of evidence”) (citations omitted). Generally, there is no right to present evidence to the jury on questions that are reserved for the court to resolve, including legal questions, and indeed, that have already been resolved. See [United States v.] Anton, 546 F.3d [1355] at 1357-58 [ (11th Cir.2008) ] (<HOLDING>); see also United States v. Gordon, 641 F.2d
holding that the constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense  recognizing a criminal defendants right to present a complete defense holding that the constitutional right to present a defense is not violated by the exclusion of a defendants proffered evidence where he is otherwise given the opportunity to present his defense and crossexamine the key prosecution witnesses holding that the sixth amendment right to present a meaningful defense does not entitle a defendant to present evidence on a question of law holding that courts may not find a per se sixth amendment violation where the defendant was unable to present relevant evidence