In support of the motion, the defendant argues the existence of entrapment as a matter of law. Because, in essence, the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence on the issue of entrapment, we consider the evidence in the light most favorable to sustaining the verdict to determine whether the facts established and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom support a verdict of guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. State v. Pearl, 28 Conn. App. 521, 526, 613 A.2d 304 (1992). We conclude that the evidence sufficiently supports the judgment of conviction. It is, of course, possible that on retrial the defense of entrapment will obtain with the benefit of additional evidence pertaining to the involvement of Buckley. 9 Cf. State v. Milum, 197 Conn. 602, 611, 500 A.2d 555 (1985) (<HOLDING>). 10 We note that the record is ambiguous with
holding that accused has right to crossexamine witness on issue of a witness potential bias that stemmed from the fact that the witness had instituted a civil action for damages against the defendant arising from the crime charged holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness holding that the defendants due process rights were violated when the trial judge singled out the only defense witness and indicated to that witness that he expected the witness to he and would personally ensure that the witness was prosecuted for perjury and thereby effectively drove that witness off the stand holding that testimonial hearsay statements of a witness who does not appear at trial are inadmissible under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to crossexamine the witness holding that where a states witness has not gained a concrete benefit for his testimony by way of a deal with the state and the accused is permitted broad scope in exposing the potential for bias in the witnesss testimony the trial court did not err in not allowing the accused to crossexamine the witness about possible recidivist penalties that he faced