The following excerpt is from United States v. Hibler, 463 F.2d 455 (9th Cir. 1972):
This is a case where the undisclosed evidence was possibly useful to the defense but not likely to have changed the verdict. Cf. Giglio v. United States, 405 U.S. 150, 92 S.Ct. 763, 31 L.Ed.2d 104 (1972).
There was no error with respect to the restriction of cross-examination. The trial judge made available an adequate substitute for a written transcript of the prior inconsistent statement. Britt v. North Carolina, 404 U.S. 226, 92 S.Ct. 431, 30 L.Ed.2d 400 (1971).
I would affirm.
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.