hearing and order disclosure if it found “reasonable cause to believe the material [was] exculpatory.” A.R.S. § 13-4430(D) (2011). The privilege required the exclusion of the conversation. ¶ 37 Application of the privilege did not violate Forde’s confrontation and due process rights by allowing the State to introduce evidence of the conversation between Gina and the advocate and then blocking Forde from disputing its content. Forde not the State asked Gina about the pretrial hearing and her conversation with the advocate to cast doubt on the identification. Moreover, precluding the advocate’s testimony did not impede Forde from cross-examining Gina or arguing that Gina’s identification was unreliable. Cf. Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 52-53, 107 S.Ct. 989, 94 L.Ed.2d 40 (1987) (<HOLDING>). E. Defense Counsel’s Motion to Withdraw ¶ 38
recognizing that a criminal defendants right to counsel is the right to the effective assistance of counsel holding that statute allowing videotaped testimony of child witnesses at trial violated state constitutional right of confrontation but not sixth amendment right holding that the right to confrontation is a trial right and is normally satisfied if defense counsel receives wide latitude at trial to question witnesses recognizing defendants right to due process includes the right to present a defense by crossexamining witnesses holding that a criminal defendant has a sixth amendment right to counsel at trial