Procedure § 11.8(a) (4th ed.) (“The ‘right to the assistance of counsel’ the Supreme Court noted in Herring, ‘has been understood to mean that there, can be no restrictions upon the function of counsel in defending a criminal prosecution in accord with the traditions of the adversary factfinding process.’ Accordingly, state action, whether by statute or trial court ruling, that prohibits counsel from making full use of traditional trial procedures may be viewed as denying defendant the effective assistance of counsel.”). Of course, not all government action regulating the trial process violates the Sixth Amendment. A defendant must generally show how a particular action violates his right to a fair trial. See Michigan v. Lucas, 500 U.S. 145, 111 S.Ct. 1743, 114 L.Ed.2d 205 (1991) (<HOLDING>). This is because a rigid, per se rule is, by
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 holding that violation of state law was not a per se constitutional violation holding that per se statutory rule is not permissible under fourth amendment holding that the failure to perfect a direct appeal in derogation of a defendants actual request is a per se violation of the sixth amendment