142 S.W.3d 73, 78-79 (Ky.2004). In recognition of this right, it is improper to coerce a defendant into relinquishing his constitutional right to testify through threat of prosecution for perjury. In Hillard v. Commonwealth, 158 S.W.3d 758, 766 (Ky.2005), we observed that perjury warnings directed to a defense witness, when limited to mere information or advice about the possibility of a perjury charge, were not improper per se. But, reversal may be required if such warnings are so strongly cast that they amount to deliberate and badgering threats designed to quash significant testimony, or otherwise intimidate a witness to the extent of interfering with the witness’s free and unhampered choice to testify. See Webb v. Texas, 409 U.S. 95, 93 S.Ct. 351, 34 L.Ed.2d 330 (1972) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Blackwell, 694 F.2d 1325,
holding that defendant waived his confrontation rights by threatening witness not to testify holding that the judges entry into the jury room constituted reversible error 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 a trial judges badgering of sole defense witness which included threatening him with prosecution for perjury causing him not to testify constituted reversible error holding that a trial judges action in singling out a defense witness for a lengthy admonition on the dangers of perjury effectively drove that witness off the stand and thus deprived the defendant of due process of law under the fourteenth amendment