or whether she snorted any. Ellerbrock, 2010 CCA LEXIS 32, at *2-*3, 2010 WL 3931488, at *1. There was conflicting testimony as to when and if CL passed out and vomited. Indeed, the toxicologist called by trial counsel summarized the degree of doubt over CL’s intoxication in testifying that she “exhibit[ed] anywhere from minimal effects of sedation ... to being precomatose.” Based on the Government’s theory, the difference between CL’s being minimally sedated and precomatose may have been the difference between consensual sex and rape. This factor also leans in favor of finding harm. Even though CL was subjected to substantial cross-examination, none of the questions were about her previous affair. As such, this factor also leans towards a finding of harm. See Roberts, 69 M.J. at 29 (<HOLDING>). Finally, the prosecution’s case was not
holding that limitation on scope and breadth of crossexamination did not significantly curtail effectiveness of witness crossexamination because crossexamination was lengthy and extensive recognizing that extensive crossexamination of the witness alone is not enough if the crossexamination permitted did not include questions on the issue constitutionally required holding that the constitutional right to crossexamination must be satisfied first before the court can exercise its discretion in limiting the scope or extent of crossexamination recognizing that criminal defendants right to testify is subject to crossexamination holding due process required an opportunity for crossexamination when the decision depended on the credibility of individual witness testimony