eby 'to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.' Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (quoting Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 318, (1974)). "[T]he exposure of a witness' motivation in testifying is a proper and i

eby 'to expose to the jury the facts from which jurors could appropriately draw inferences relating to the reliability of the witness.' Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986) (quoting Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 318, (1974)). "[T]he exposure of a witness' motivation in testifying is a proper and i

must deter- mine if we have jurisdiction under it. Jur- isdiction cannot be conferred on us by the will or the waiver of the parties. Dela- ware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 692, 106 S.Ct. 1431, 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986). If jur- isdiction does not exist, we are bound to dismiss the suit however long it has b

2 F.3d 88, 157 (2d Cir.1998). [45] Nonetheless, not every error- whether alone or in combination with oth- ers-warrants a new trial. Cl Delaware A. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673, 681, 106 S. 1431z 89 L.Ed.2d 674 (1986) ("[T]he Con- stitution entitles a criminal defendant to a fair trial, not a perfect one."). A