shed light on the magnitude of Allen’s incentive to cooperate with authorities and would have revealed that he had much more at stake than was already known to the jury. Beyond facing serious criminal charges, the newly-disclosed information shows Allen was very distressed at the prospect of his alleged sexual misconduct becoming public. In an FBI interview, Allen said he would “become unglued” if the allegations were published in the media). Even though the information does not run afoul of Rule 403, the question remains as to whether it would have been admissible or whether Kohring could have used it to impeach Allen. We conclude that, at a minimum, Kohring could have used the information on cross-examination to impeach Allen. See, e.g., Lindh v. Murphy, 124 F.3d 899 (7th Cir.1997) (<HOLDING>). The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth
holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial holding that a defendant was denied his sixth amendment right to crossexamination when he was barred from questioning an expert witness about potential bias stemming from accusations of sexual impropriety with several patients that resulted in criminal charges and the loss of his medical license and faculty position holding that states use of informant to obtain incriminating evidence from defendant about pending charges violated defendants sixth amendment right to counsel notwithstanding that state was also investigating other charges as to which the sixth amendment right to counsel had not attached holding that questioning expert witness about specific allegations of misconduct was improper impeachment holding that accused has right to crossexamine witness on issue of a witness potential bias that stemmed from the fact that the witness had instituted a civil action for damages against the defendant arising from the crime charged