Department. This information is more likely to place the witnesses in their proper setting because the witnesses’ former neighbors are more likely than their current neighbors to provide testimony regarding the witnesses’ reputation for veracity in their neighborhood. See Alford, 282 U.S. at 691, 51 S.Ct. at 219. Similarly, knowledge of the witnesses’ former addresses is more likely than their new addresses to help the jury interpret the witnesses’ testimony in a light reflected by knowledge of the witnesses’ environment. See id. We next address the witnesses’ right to personal safety. During the in camera hearing of November 22, 1996, the prosecution made a showing to the district court that the witnesses’ safety would be endangered if their i tes v. Rangel, 534 F.2d 147 (9th Cir.) (<HOLDING>). III. In balancing the witnesses’ right to
holding that a correct address could have been determined by checking telephone directory holding that where husband had strong familial ties to richmond he was not voluntarily underemployed based on his refusal of a job opportunity requiring him to relocate to a different state holding that witness whose life had been threatened forcing him to relocate was not required to disclose true name address or telephone number holding that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion to substitute counsel on the strength of gonzalezs sworn responses at the pleataking that no one was threatening him or forcing him to plead where the defendant alleged that his attorney forced him to plead guilty  and threatened him if he did not take the plea holding that the appropriate sanction was to require the defendant to disclose the nature of the agreement with the witness