Does Defendant have an attorney-client relationship with each witness at the time of their testimony?

^2. Defendant argues counsel had an attorney-client relationship with each witness at the time of their testimony, citing Beery v. State Bar (1987) 43 Cal.3d 802, 811. Assuming such a relationship ever existed, it was of limited scope, unrelated to the two witnesses' potential criminal liability, and it terminated long before the time of their testimony, since counsel does not appear to have been expected to perform further services after the telephone consultations. Beery, which merely addresses the initiation of an attorney-client relationship without discussing its duration or scope, is not to the contrary.

^3. Defendant argues the trial court should have excluded the evidence under Evidence Code section 352 as more prejudicial than probative. Because defendant opened the door to the admission of this evidence under section 1103, subdivision (b), it is not clear it was subject to a typical section 352 analysis. In any event, we find no abuse of discretion in the trial court's decision not to exclude the evidence under section 352. (People v. Mills, supra, 48 Cal.4th 158, 195 [applying abuse of discretion standard].)