New York’s highest court ruled Tuesday that police officers can be cross-examined at criminal trials like any other witnesses and grilled about specific misdeeds alleged in federal lawsuits such as lying, fabricating evidence or making false arrests.

The Court of Appeals, ruling unanimously in three cases, said trial judges erred in prohibiting cross-examination about allegations underlying federal lawsuits against the police witnesses that are relevant to their credibility. The court set some limits on questioning and said trial judges retain broad discretion in weighing the probative value of questioning against possible confusion or prejudice.

The high court upheld convictions from Manhattan drug arrests in 2011 and 2012, concluding the evidence was still overwhelming in those. The seven judges ordered a new trial in a Bronx gun-possession case.

Testifying officers had faced federal civil rights lawsuits over previous arrests.

“These cases stand for the unremarkable proposition that law enforcement witnesses should be treated in the same manner as any other prosecution witness for purposes of cross-examination,” Judge Sheila Abdus-Salaam wrote. “Specific allegations of prior bad acts in a federal lawsuit against a particular witness do establish a good-faith basis for cross-examining that witness about the misconduct.”

Lawyers shouldn’t be permitted to ask witnesses if they have been sued, if the case was settled unless they admitted wrongdoing, or if criminal charges against the plaintiffs were dismissed, according to the court.

(AP)