CALIFORNIA EVIDENCE: CIVIL AND CRIMINAL
...Method of Exam: Cross-Exam
......Bias or Improper Motive
.........Promises of Leniency/Immunity
10 Cards On This Topic:

No abuse of discretion in sustaining DA objection to D's question as to whether informant sought protective custody in other cases where not relevant to whether he received benefits for testimony in this case.

Although error to hold law-of-the-case precluded D from relitigating issues addressed in Boyer I, denial of D’s motion to suppress girlfriend’s testimony upheld as her testimony not improperly coerced.

Any deal between witness' attorney and DA must be disclosed, even if witness unaware of details. Secret deals may result in witnesses coloring testimony.

DA properly inquired as to why DA witness was giving testimony; answer that he feared prison because D had friends there proper.

D should be permitted to determine if DA's witness has been promised leniency by police; considerable latitude to show witness' state of mind permitted.

DA may not permit witness to mislead jury about agreement made with DA relating to testimony.

DA must disclose to all Ds discussions he had with DA's witness re possibility of leniency in exchange for testimony, even though no offer made or accepted.

Withholding grant of immunity until after witness testifies against other Ds not desirable, but not necessarily unfair.

W properly questioned re bias and motivation for testifying, incl. questions re involvement in murder for which immunized; involvement only marginally relevant to impeachment.

DA's duty to disclose to D evidence re credibility of witnesses.