Opinion ID: 518923
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Cross-examination of Zach Walls

Text: 13 The trial court refused to allow Durham to cross-examine Zach Walls about charges that had allegedly been dismissed in exchange for Walls' testimony. Durham asserts that this refusal denied him his sixth amendment right to confront witnesses against him. 14 Trial judges retain broad discretion insofar as the confrontation clause is concerned to limit the scope of cross-examination based on concerns of harassment, prejudice, confusion of the issues or interrogation that is repetitive or only marginally relevant. United States v. Klauer, 856 F.2d 1147, 1149 (8th Cir.1988) (citations omitted). A trial court's decision to limit cross-examination will not be reversed 'unless there has been a clear abuse of discretion and a showing of prejudice to defendant.'  Id. (quoting United States v. Lee, 743 F.2d 1240, 1249 (8th Cir.1984)). 15 The trial court conducted a voir dire examination outside the presence of the jury to permit Durham to determine if Walls had made a deal with the prosecution. During cross-examination, Walls denied, repeatedly, that a promise had been made in exchange for his testimony. The government's attorneys also denied the existence of any such agreement. 16 Given this evidence, we hold that the restriction on cross-examination did not violate Durham's rights of confrontation.