The Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause guarantees a criminal defendant a reasonable opportunity to cross-examine the witnesses against him. The breadth of this opportunity is unquestionably at its apex when the witness is an informant. Was Gibbs denied this right when he and his co-defendants were prevented from cross-examining informant Feissa on numerous topics intended to develop his lack of credibility, bias toward the prosecution, and motive to lie when the state court unreasonably viewed these topics as irrelevant?

Whether the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause was violated when the defendant was prevented from cross-examining an informant witness on topics intended to develop the witness's lack of credibility, bias, and motive to lie