Minnesota Lawyer
Where a defendant argued that his rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated by a limit on his counsel’s ability to cross-examine co-defendants regarding the extent to which their sentences might be reduced in exchange for their testimony against the defendant, estimating the co-defendants’ percentage reductions would have been a guess and permitting such cross examination risked confusing the jury, so the determination that the defendant’s rights were not violated was not an unreasonable application of law, and the prosecution’s case did not depend much on the co-defendants’ testimony, so limitation of the cross examination was not prejudicial to the defendant. Judgment affirmed.
13-1190 Yang v. Roy, appealed from District of Minnesota, Kelly, J.
