Does the confrontation clause apply to cross-examination?

confines of the confrontation clause, the trial court retains wide latitude in restricting cross-examination that is repetitive, prejudicial, confusing of the issues, or of marginal relevance.'" (People v. Ayala (2000) 23 Cal.4th 225, 301.)

As a general rule, "'"the ordinary rules of evidence do not impermissibly infringe on the accused's [constitutional] right to present a defense."'" (People v. Lawley (2002) 27 Cal.4th 102, 155.) That is so here. The basic rules of evidence do not violate a defendant's constitutional right to present a defense. (People v. Phillips (2000) 22 Cal.4th 226, 238.) The trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding that the consumption of time was not justified by the marginal probative value of the proffered evidence. The marginal probative value of the videotapes does not place their exclusion outside the general rule. (People v. Hawthorne (1992) 4 Cal.4th 43, 56-58.)