What rights does a defendant have to cross-examine a witness?

Cross-examination is "'"the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth,"'" and it has two purposes. (Fost v. Superior Court (2000) 80 Cal.App.4th 724, 733.) "Its chief purpose is 'to test the credibility, knowledge and recollection of the witness. [Citations.] The other purpose is to elicit additional evidence.' [Citations.] Because it relates to the fundamental fairness of the proceedings, cross-examination is said to represent an 'absolute right,' not merely a privilege [citations], and denial or undue restriction thereof may be reversible error." (Ibid.)

"'Where a witness refuses to submit to cross-examination, or is unavailable for that purpose, the conventional remedy is to exclude the witness's testimony on direct.' [Citation.] Moreover where a witness 'frustrates' cross-examination by declining to answer some or all of the questions, the court may strike all or part of the testimony. [Citation.] The decision whether to strike the direct examination, or a partial strike of the testimony, of a witness who does not submit to cross-examination is left to the discretion of the trial court." (People v. Noriega (2015) 237 Cal.App.4th 991, 1000-1001.)

A criminal defendant has a constitutional right to testify on his own behalf. (People v. Johnson (1998) 62 Cal.App.4th 608, 617.) "In deciding whether to strike a defendant's or a defense witness's testimony based on his or her refusal to answer one or more questions, the trial court should examine '"the motive of the witness and the materiality of the answer." [Citation.]' [Citation.] The court should also consider if less severe remedies are available before employing the 'drastic solution' of striking the witness's entire testimony. [Citation.] These include striking part of the testimony or

Page 30

allowing the trier of fact to consider the witness's failure to answer in evaluating his credibility." (People v. Seminoff (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 518, 525-526.)