cited Cited "see" United States v. George M. Florea and Raymond Paul Vara See Helmick v. Cupp, 437 F.2d 321 (9th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 835 , 92 S.Ct. 120 , 30 L.Ed.2d 67 (1971).

discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Coyer (People v. Espinoza (1977) 73 Cal.App.3d 287, 291 [ 140 Cal.Rptr. 846 ]; see also Davis v. Alaska (1974) 415 U.S. 308 [ 39 L.Ed.2d 347 , 94 S.Ct. 1105 ].) As this court summarized in People v. Brown (1970) 13 Cal.App.3d 876 [ 91 Cal.Rptr. 904 ], certiorari denied 404 U.S. 835 [ 30 L.Ed.2d 66 , 92 S.Ct. 120 ] (disapproved on other grounds Donald L. v. Superior Court (1972) 7 Cal.3d 592 [ 102 Cal.Rptr. 850 , 498 P.2d 1098 ] and People v. Chi Ko Wong (1976) 18 Cal.3d 698 [ 135 Cal.Rptr. 392 , 557 P.2d 976 ]) it is the witness’ subjective expectations, not the objective bounds of prosecutorial i…

discussed Cited "see, e.g." People v. Coyer During trial, defense counsel "is permitted to inquire whether charges are pending against a witness as a circumstance tending to show that the witness may be seeking leniency through testifying. [Citations.]" ( People v. Claxton (1982) 129 Cal. App.3d 638, 661 [181 Cal. *843 Rptr. 281].) Thus, in People v. Allen (1978) 77 Cal. App.3d 924 [ 144 Cal. Rptr. 6 ], the Court of Appeal found prejudicial error in a trial court's restriction of defense counsel's inquiry into juvenile charges pending against a witness — "[i]t must be emphasized that there is no requirement that the minor witness' moti…