context: 3. The district court properly denied Kalilikane an opportunity to continue his testimony, because of Kalilikane's disruptive behavior and the inadmissibility of Kalilikane's proffered testimony.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 820 F.2d 1065, 1074
citation_a.parenthetical: "[A] defendant can waive [the] right to testify through contumacious conduct."
citation_a.sentence: See United States v. Pino-Noriega, 189 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir.1999) (“[A] defendant’s right to testify is not unduly restricted by rules limiting a defendant’s testimony to relevant matters ... ”) (citation omitted) (emphasis in the original); see also United States v. Johnson, 820 F.2d 1065, 1074 (9th Cir.1987) (“[A] defendant can waive [the] right to testify through contumacious conduct.”) (citation omitted).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 189 F.3d 1089, 1095
citation_b.parenthetical: "[A] defendant's right to testify is not unduly restricted by rules limiting a defendant's testimony to relevant matters ... "
citation_b.sentence: See United States v. Pino-Noriega, 189 F.3d 1089, 1095 (9th Cir.1999) (“[A] defendant’s right to testify is not unduly restricted by rules limiting a defendant’s testimony to relevant matters ... ”) (citation omitted) (emphasis in the original); see also United States v. Johnson, 820 F.2d 1065, 1074 (9th Cir.1987) (“[A] defendant can waive [the] right to testify through contumacious conduct.”) (citation omitted).