telephone number was disconnected; Talib then decided to forego calling her as a witness. The record does not suggest that Talib changed his mind about having the witness testify because he was strong-armed by the district court. The district court contacted Talib’s other proposed witness by telephone and, after explaining that she was implicated in the sale of marijuana and that she had a right not to incriminate herself or to waive that right and testify on Talib’s behalf, the witness informed the district court that she declined to testify. The district court thus excused her from testifying. The district court had discretion to caution this witness of the possibility of incriminating herself if she decided to testify. See United States v. Arthur, 949 F.2d 211, 215-16 (6th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>). Although threatening remarks and conduct that
holding that trial court properly barred certain questions about witness who was in federal witness protection program holding that the trial courts admonition of a witness even though detailed and strongly stated did not coerce the witness because the court did not threaten or badger the witness and the court provided the witness with her own counsel to ensure that the decision was voluntary 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 promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness holding that a district court has discretion to caution a witness about selfincrimination so long as the court does not actively encourage the witness not to testify or badgerf a witness into remaining silent