CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Hearsay
......Confrontation
.........Criminal-State Cases
............Restriction on Cross-Exam.
 12 Cards On This Topic:
  • Federal standard upheld on restrictions on cross-examination.
  • D's confrontation and cross-exam. rights violated in DV trial where court precluded inquiry into threats DA made to D's W to coerce her into testifying against him.
  • Restricting W's cross-exam. re prior murder did not violate D's rights to confront witnesses or present a defense where he failed to show the cross-exam. would have produced a significantly different impression of W's credibility.
  • No confrontation clause violation in sustained objections to D’s attempts to impeach W’s credibility, where evidence cumulative, of minimal relevance, or too remote in time.
  • No abuse of discretion or constitutional violation in court's failing to curtail DA's objections to defense counsel's crossexamining of W about prior offenses or in prohibiting questioning about other offenses.
  • No confrontation clause violation in excluding D's cross exam of W re bribery where W's credibility extensively impeached on other issues.
  • D's inability to meaningfully cross-examine witness may violate confrontation clause.
  • Reversible error to allow DA to ask 100+ leading questions of unresponsive W about his out-of-court statements to prove D guilty—with this "illusion of testimony" and no opportunity for cross-exam., D denied a fair trial.
  • D's 6th Amend. right not violated when he was prohibited from cross-examining V about her website, content of which was not relevant and defense counsel had ample opportunity to cross-examine V and challenge credibility.
  • Trial court did not violate Confrontation Clause by preventing inquiry into circumstances of W's prior conviction where prohibited cross-exam would not have produced significantly different impression of W's credibility.
  • Handcuffed D was entitled to Miranda warnings before questioning—as DA used D’s custodial statements to impeach him, he was entitled to CALJIC No. 2.13.1 instruction to consider statements only re credibility.
  • D's confrontation right not violated by mother sitting next to testifying child victim.


    •