her bias more than apparent. On cross-examination, Stephan-Blackwell admitted that she was dating Lundgren in 2003, at which time she was still lying to the SEC about her involvement in this case. She further admitted that she approached the government about immunity only after she separated from Defendant and that shortly after she received immunity she became engaged to Lundgren. Moreover, Defendant raised all these issues in his closing. Because the limitations placed on Defendant’s cross-examination of Stephan-Blackwell did not deprive Defendant of the ability to attack Stephan-Blackwell’s credibility and reveal any potential bias, the limitations cannot be said to have deprived Defendant of the opportunity to defend himself. Boggs v. Collins, 226 F.3d 728, 739 (6th Cir.2000) (<HOLDING>). e. Cumulative Effect of the District Court’s
holding that accused has right to crossexamine witness on issue of a witness potential bias that stemmed from the fact that the witness had instituted a civil action for damages against the defendant arising from the crime charged holding that defendants right to crossexamine a witness for bias or motivation to lie is not grounds for reversal where the jury had enough information despite the limits placed on otherwise permitted crossexamination to assess the defense theory of bias or improper motive holding that where a states witness has not gained a concrete benefit for his testimony by way of a deal with the state and the accused is permitted broad scope in exposing the potential for bias in the witnesss testimony the trial court did not err in not allowing the accused to crossexamine the witness about possible recidivist penalties that he faced holding that if crossexamination aims to reveal the motive bias or prejudice of a witness it ought to be allowed recognizing that extensive crossexamination of the witness alone is not enough if the crossexamination permitted did not include questions on the issue constitutionally required