a normal rate — I believe I had calculated it earlier, and I’ll calculate it real quick again if I need to.... A normal rate would be , 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) (explaining that the Confrontation Clause guarantees a defendant's right to cross-examine a witness to expose "potential bias” even though the Clause does not prevent a trial court from limiting cross-examination of a particular topic if the evidence would be "only marginally relevant”), id. at 685, 106 S.Ct. 1431 (White, J., concurring) (noting that there would be a violation of the Confrontation Clause if the jury received "a significantly different impression of the witness’ credibility had cross-examination not been curtailed” and the outcome of the trial was affected (emphasis added)), Koehler, 679 S.W.2d at 9 (<HOLDING>), and Ho, 171 S.W.3d at 304 (explaining that
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 it is improper to ask a witness to comment on the credibility of another 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 because the line of questioning was not relevant to the credibility of the witness and sought information about which the witness had no knowledge it was not a constitutional violation to sustain the objection holding that error is preserved regarding a defendants right to confront a witness if the defendant identifies for the trial court the subject matter about which he or she desired to examine the witness and the subject had a tendency to affect the witness credibility