his own defense is fundamental to the fairness of the adversary system. Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 302, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1049, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973). However, the decision whether to employ the right to compulsory process in a given case rests with the defendant, and “[t]he very nature of the right requires that its effective use be preceded by deliberate planning and affirmative conduct.” Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400, 410, 108 S.Ct. 646, 653-54, 98 L.Ed.2d 798 (1988). The Supreme Court has concluded that “[i]t would demean the high purpose of the Compulsory Process Clause” to construe it to exempt defendants from “adherence to rules of procedure that govern the orderly presentation of facts and arguments” in the adversary process. Id. at 416, 411, 108 S.Ct. at 656, 654 (<HOLDING>). Defendants may constitutionally be required
holding that exclusion of defense witness does not violate sixth amendment where defendant failed to comply with discovery rule requiring that witnesses be identified before trial holding that exclusion of testimony as collateral and of speculative relevance did not violate defendants sixth and fourteenth amendment rights holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial holding that the exclusion of prospective jurors from either the area where the crime was committed or where the defendant resided does not violate the sixth amendment holding that rule 606b does not violate the sixth amendment