In what circumstances will a defendant be able to present a defense in a civil case that seeks to impeach a witness for bias against his own mother?

Because of the tenuous inferential link between Saul's lay opinion as to whether his mother and Contreras were communicating well and the defense he sought to support with that evidence, the trial court was justified in concluding the proffered evidence was "speculative" and of minimal probative value. (People v. Ramos (1997) 15 Cal.4th 1133, 1165 ["defendant offered only . . . supposition" concerning witness bias, "which the trial court properly excluded as too remote and speculative"].) Considering the nature of the proffered defense evidence, the court's ruling "simply foreclosed evidence of such speculative and marginal impeachment value it was likely to confuse or mislead the jury." (Id. at p. 1166.) We find no abuse of discretion.

3. Pereyra's ability to present a defense