The court properly exercised its discretion in denying defense counsel's request to cross-examine an undercover officer regarding a statement he made to the prosecutor during a recess in which the officer expressed his mistaken belief that one of the trial jurors had served on a prior case in which the officer had testified. Accordingly, the court's ruling imposed a reasonable limitation on cross-examination that did not deprive defendant of his right to confront witnesses...
Let's get started
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.
- Updated daily.
- Uncompromising quality.
- Complete, Accurate, Current.
