gun folks,” defendant argues that the prosecution’s case hinged solely on Brandon’s testimony. Additionally, because this testimony could have been considered by the jury in assessing the defendant’s state of mind and this “might have contributed to its crossing this very line in this accountability case,” defense counsel should have been allowed to explore Brandon’s potential bias with respect to the alleged clerical error. Simply put, if Brandon’s sentence was erroneously reduced, Brandon may have felt compelled to testify favorably for th todial status is a proper subject of cross-examination when attempting to demonstrate that the witness’ testimony may be biased against a defendant. See Alford v. United States, 282 U.S. 687, 693, 75 L. Ed. 624, 628-29, 51 S. Ct. 218, 220 (1931) (<HOLDING>); People v. Triplett, 108 Ill. 2d 463, 480-81,
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 prosecutors reference to defendant being only witness in courtroom during testimony as tailoring opportunity not plain error holding due process required an opportunity for crossexamination when the decision depended on the credibility of individual witness testimony holding that death of potential alibi witness did not cause actual prejudice because defendant failed to relate the substance of the testimony of the missing witness in sufficient detail and to show witness testimony not available from other sources holding error to deny a defendant an opportunity to elicit witness custodial status during crossexamination in order to show witness testimony may be affected by fear or favor growing out of his current custodial status