prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right ... to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor.” U.S. Const. amend VI. The right to compulsory process encompasses “[t]he right to offer the testimony of witnesses, and to compel their attendance, if necessary.” Washington v. Texas, 388 U.S. 14, 18-19, 87 S.Ct. 1920, 18 L.Ed.2d 1019 (1967). As “a fundamental element of due process of law,” the right to compulsory process is incorporated against the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. See id. at 19, 20, 87 S.Ct. 1920. The Supreme Court has established that the government violates due process when its conduct “effectively dr[ives a] witness off the stand.” Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95, 98, 93 S.Ct. 351, 34 L.Ed.2d 330 (1972) (per curiam) (<HOLDING>). We have further explained that, under Webb,
recognizing a criminal defendants right to present a complete defense holding right to present a defense was violated when the trial judge singled out and admonished a defense witness about the risks of perjury in unnecessarily strong terms holding that a judges lengthy perjury warnings to a defense witness effectively drove the witness off the stand thereby denying the defendant his due process right to present his defense holding that the defendants due process rights were violated when the trial judge singled out the only defense witness and indicated to that witness that he expected the witness to he and would personally ensure that the witness was prosecuted for perjury and thereby effectively drove that witness off the stand 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