Opinion ID: 591847
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: henry's right to cross-examine witnesses on the issue of bias

Text: 35 Henry also contends that the trial court erred by precluding her from cross-examining VNB employees regarding their possible bias because of VNB's civil lawsuit against her. 36 A trial court's determination of the scope of the cross-examination will not be disturbed on appeal unless appellant demonstrates an abuse of the court's discretion. United States v. Lopez, 885 F.2d 1428 (9th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 110 S.Ct. 748 (1990). 37 When cross-examination concerns bias, the test is whether the jury had sufficient information to assess the witness' bias without the excluded information. United States v. Bleckner, 601 F.2d 382, 385 (9th Cir.1979). This court has reversed when there is a reasonable possibility that the defendant's inability to cross-examine for bias materially affected the verdict. See United States v. Jones, 766 F.2d 412 (9th Cir.1985). 38 Henry has failed to demonstrate, by offer of proof or otherwise, what bias a witness may have had and how such cross-examination would have affected the verdict. In addition, Henry's counsel was afforded a limited opportunity to explore the bias issue. 39 More importantly, any further explanation of the underlying civil suit may have hurt Henry instead of aided her. In light of the evidence supporting her conviction and the improbability that any questions regarding the underlying civil suit would have affected the jury's verdict, we conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion. 40 Judgment is AFFIRMED.