Because the deprivation of essential, singular witness testimony supporting an indigent defendant's theory of defense violates the right to compulsory process and a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment and the right against unreasonable discrimination based on financial disability in the criminal justice system, may an appellate court affirm denial of a witness subpoena simply by finding reasons that a district court might have relied on where there is no indication that the district court evaluated discretionary questions of evidentiary admissibility in the first instance?

Whether the deprivation of essential, singular witness testimony supporting an indigent defendant's theory of defense violates the right to compulsory process and a fair trial under the Sixth Amendment and the right against unreasonable discrimination based on financial disability in the criminal justice system