The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Georges, 116 F.3d 486 (9th Cir. 1997):
Accordingly, defense counsel was allowed to probe the fact that the prosecutor had told the witness what type of cross-examination could be expected. Therefore, jurors were made aware of the prosecutor's preparation of the witness when they deliberated. See United States v. Cozzetti, 441 F.2d 344, 350 (9th Cir.1971) (ability to cross-examine witness may cure any violation of the Rule 615). Thus, the court was within its discretion in allowing cross-examination regarding the prosecutor's disclosures to the witness rather than declaring a mistrial or striking the witness' testimony.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.