the defendants’ subpoena met those requirements.”). In any event, we are not convinced that the court committed obvious error in the circumstances of this case. Marroquin-Alda-na was aware of Lissette’s attempt to obtain a U visa based on her assistance in Marroquin-Aldana’s prosecution, and had obtained in discovery a copy of the District Attorney’s certification in support of Lis-sette’s application. Marroquin-Aldana’s lack of access to Lissette’s attorney’s file did not prevent him from impeaching Lis-sette based on her immigration issues and her U visa application. In fact, defense counsel vigorously cross-examined Lissette regarding her immigration issues and her motive to fabricate in order to resolve those issues. See United States v. Brown, 347 F.3d 1095, 1098-99 (9th Cir.2003) (<HOLDING>). [¶ 39] In light of the evidence of
holding no confrontation right violation where the district court limited crossexamination to basic information about the witnesss convictions and prohibited inter alia descriptions of the witnesss conduct during the incidents leading to his convictions emphasis added holding that testimony supporting the witnesss character for truthfulness was improperly admitted on redirect examination because there was no attack on the witnesss credibility or character during crossexamination holding that under hubbard a trial courts error in excluding bias evidence would be harmless if either 1 despite the exclusion the jury nonetheless had an adequate opportunity to assess the witnesss credibility or 2 the witnesss credibility was not important to the outcome of the trial emphasis added holding that a witnesss testimony or an exhibit may not explicitly and directly contain an opinion as to a trial witnesss credibility holding that the quashing of a defendants subpoena for a prosecution witnesss complete immigration file did not violate the defendants confrontation rights where the defendants crossexamination enabled the jury sufficiently to assess the witnesss credibility