in appropriate cases, bow to accommodate other legitimate interests in the criminal trial process.” (internal quotation marks omitted)). The testimony must still be relevant, and to make a relevance determination, a trial court must review the evidence with reference to the specific elements of the offense (or defense) in question. See Markey, 393 F.3d at 1135. Where a defendant refuses to make a proffer and thereby precludes the trial court from conducting this review, the court’s exclusion of the evidence does not violate a defendant’s right to testify. Whether the district court excluded the evidence because the proffer did not adequately support the defense or because there was no proffer, the threshold showing of relevance has not been met. See Portillo-Vega, 478 F.3d at 1197-2000 (<HOLDING>). Equally, the . Confrontation Clause is not
holding that duress evidence was properly excluded where defendant failed to proffer evidence on each element of the defense holding that a proffer of evidence for purposes of credibility made during a hearing under rule 412 of the texas rules of evidence did not preserve a confrontation clause argument for appeal because such a proffer did not bring the judges attention to the appropriate evidence rule or statute holding that the trial court properly excluded evidence relating to a purported additional suspect where the evidence was speculative and had little or no probative value holding defendant failed to preserve for appeal the question of admissibility of evidence that was the subject of the motion in limine where defendant failed to object to evidence when offered at trial holding a proffer of testimony is required to preserve the issue of whether testimony was properly excluded by the trial judge and an appellate court will not consider error alleged in the exclusion of testimony unless the record on appeal shows fairly what the excluded testimony would have been