Edwards appealed his conviction on the grounds that one police officer who testified against him had been reprimanded in disciplinary proceedings in another case and that four police officers who had testified against Edwards had been involved in other misconduct related to testimony. However, the appellate court held that no mention could have been made of these other instances of misconduct. The court's decision was inappropriate, because it made new law. The precedents on which it relied did not require the rule that the court adopted. The court should have established a wider rule under which the defense is permitted to cross- examine police officers alleged to have previously fabricated evidence, provided that the prior misconduct can be established by prima facie evidence. Footnotes