“implicates” Article I, section 11, of the Oregon Constitution and the Fifth, Sixth, and Eighth Amendments to the United States Constitution. Defendant does not explain why the trial court’s ruling violated those rights. We decline to address defendant’s undeveloped constitutional claims and limit our discussion to the single constitutional argument that he made in his brief. See State v. Thompson, 328 Or 248, 254 n 3, 971 P2d 879, cert den, 527 US 1042 (1999) (declining to reach undeveloped constitutional claims). 1 12 Given our disposition of defendant’s federal claim, we do not decide whether defendant may convert-what appears at bottom to be an unequal treatment claim against the state into a due process claim that the trial court’s ruling was arbitrary. See Rock, 483 US at 62 (<HOLDING>). 13 The witness presumably meant to say that
recognizing a criminal defendants right to present a complete defense holding that while a witness and prosecutor were protected by absolute immunity for their participation in judicial proceedings they were not entitled to absolute immunity on a  1983 claim that they conspired to present false testimony holding that absolute prohibition against hypnotically refreshed testimony arbitrarily infringed federal right to present defense holding that there is no absolute federal constitutional right to bail pending appeal however once a state makes provisions for such bail it may not deny it arbitrarily or unreasonably holding that the sixth amendment right to present a meaningful defense does not entitle a defendant to present evidence on a question of law