to develop a workable standard and resolve each dispute. The statutory privilege is not a legal defense to a discovery dispute, but the rationale of the privilege provides an important perspective in gaining a full understanding of the privacy interest at stake. The competing fundamental interest at stake in this case is derived from constitutional protections provided to an accused to confront witnesses in a criminal trial and to be given a fair trial. A defendant in a criminal case not only has a right to confront witnesses with effective cross-examination, but due process and the right to a fair trial also demand an accused be given a full and fair opportunity to present a claim of self-defense. See Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 1110, 39 L.Ed.2d 347, 353 (1974) (<HOLDING>); see also Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S.
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 defendants right to due process includes the right to present a defense by crossexamining witnesses holding that a district court in its discretion may limit crossexamination in order to preclude repetitive questioning upon determining that a particular subject has been exhausted even during the trial phase when defendants actually have a constitutional right to confront witnesses and more extensive due process rights than they have at sentencing recognizing defendants right to confront witnesses with adequate crossexamination recognizing that criminal defendants right to testify is subject to crossexamination