for the cooperating witnesses, and disclosed those records to defendants. Id. This criminal history was used by defendants to impeach the cooperating witnesses. See, e.g., Trial Tr. at 3405-06 (June 17, 2009) (cross-examination of Gittens concerning his conviction for stealing cars, his five-year prison sentence, and his motivation to “break the law if [he] could get a financial benefit”). And as discussed above, defense counsel made extensive efforts to impeach the cooperating witnesses’ credibility with their plea agreements and their hopes for leniency at sentencing. Thus, the Court sees no basis for finding that Straker was materially affected in his ability to challenge the credibility of the cooperating witnesses. See United States v. Lathern, 488 F.3d 1043, 1046 (D.C.Cir.2007) (<HOLDING>). Furthermore, to the extent Straker claims an
holding that the exclusion of cumulative evidence did not materially impact defendants right to present a defense holding that the constitutional right to present a defense is not violated by the exclusion of a defendants proffered evidence where he is otherwise given the opportunity to present his defense and crossexamine the key prosecution witnesses recognizing defendants right to due process includes the right to present a defense by crossexamining witnesses recognizing a criminal defendants right to present a complete defense holding that the constitutional right to be present is satisfied so long as the defendant is given an opportunity to register his opinions with counsel after juror questioning and is present when the exercise of strikes is given formal effect even if the defendant is not present when his lawyer actually exercises the peremptory challenges