Can a defendant cross-examine a prosecution witness about his probation status?

Appellant cites Davis v. Alaska (1974) 415 U.S. 308, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347, which stands for the proposition that the Sixth Amendment's right to confrontation requires that defense counsel be permitted to cross-examine a crucial prosecution witness about his probation status following an adjudication of juvenile delinquency. The defendant in that case had sought to use the evidence to show that the witness had implicated the defendant out of fear of possible jeopardy to the witness' probation. The court concluded that Alaska's interest in protecting the confidentiality of juvenile adjudications was outweighed by the defendant's right to inquire into the possible motives of the prosecution witness.

In California criminal defendants have a judicially created right of discovery, which is based on the fundamental proposition that they are [82 Cal.App.3d 114] entitled to a fair trial and intelligent defense in light of all relevant and accessible information. (Pitchess v. Superior Court (1974) 11 Cal.3d 531, 535, 113 Cal.Rptr. 897, 522 P.2d 305; Hill v. Superior Court (1974) 10 Cal.3d 812, 816, 112 Cal.Rptr. 257, 518 P.2d 1353.) The scope of such discovery is quite extensive. " 'Absent some governmental requirement that information be kept confidential for the purposes of effective law enforcement, the state has no interest in denying the accused access to all evidence that can throw light on the issues in the case, and in particular it

Page 833