him the right to confront Detective Sanchez by limiting his questions aimed at exposing the detective’s bias. However, we find no error, let alone plain error. The District Court permitted adequate cross-examination of Detective Sanchez, which revealed that he failed to follow protocol and discuss entrapment with Mr. Perry, that he assisted Perry in getting a reduced sentence of probation, and that Perry was implicated in an attempted murder charge. Thus, the jury had ample evidence to evaluate Detective Sanchez’s credibility. While Mr. Baptiste was denied the opportunity to delve into the specifics of Mr. Perry’s criminal history, we cannot say that “a reasonable jury would have received a significantly different impression” of Detective Sanchez had they heard that evidence. See id. (<HOLDING>); Diaz, 26 F.3d at 1540. 2. Mr. Perry’s
holding rule applicable to witness holding that it is improper to ask a witness to comment on the credibility of another witness holding that details of pending criminal charge would not have created a significantly different impression of witness where witness had already admitted to charge 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