State v. Jon P. Barreau, 2002 WI App 198, PFR filed 8/12/02
For Barreau: Glenn C. Reynolds
Issue/Holding:A line of inquiry that suggests potential bias is relevant; however, the witness’s “real and appreciable apprehension” of self-incrimination trumps the right of confrontation. In such an instance it may be necessary to prevent the witness from testifying or to strike portions of his or her testimony. ¶¶51-52. (No error found here, because the inhibited inquiry would have been largely cumulative. ¶54.)
(See also US v. Terrance McClurge and Reneiko Carlisle, 311 F. 3d 866 (7th Cir. 2002):
While the Sixth Amendment confrontation right may be limited by a witness’s invocation ofhis Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, a court must exercise vigilance so as not to emasculate the right of cross-examination. See United States v. Zapata, 871 F. 2d 616, 623 (7th Cir. 1989). When determining the constitutional implications of a witness’s refusal to answer questions, courts have properly drawn a distinction between cross-examination questions that are directly related to the witness’s direct testimony and cross-examination questions that are merely collateral to the witness’s direct testimony, such as “credibility.” Zapata,871 F. 2d at 624.)
