Commonwealth v. Connor, 392 Mass. 838, 841 (1984). Commonwealth v. Lewis, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 562, 572 (1981). Commonwealth v. Dean, 17 Mass. App. Ct. 943 (1983).

Much must be left to the discretion of the trial judge in this area." Commonwealth v. Lewis, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 562, 573 n. 20 (1981). The defendants were able to explore adequately the question and extent of Clarke's bias and motive to cooperate with the prosecution arising from the pending "serious felony" charges without referring to the specific charge.

Commonwealth v. Woodward, supra at 518-519. See Commonwealth v. Lewis, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 562, 564 (1981). In addition, however, the grand jury perform the important task of determining whether there is probable cause to indict an accused.

1. The judge erred in totally foreclosing the defendant's attempt to cross-examine certain witnesses concerning pending criminal charges in order to show their bias. See Commonwealth v. Connor, 392 Mass. 838, 841 (1984); Commonwealth v. Martinez, 384 Mass. 377, 380 (1981); Commonwealth v. Joyce, 382 Mass. 222, 231 (1981); Commonwealth v. Hogan, 379 Mass. 190, 191-192 (1979); Commonwealth v. Haywood, 377 Mass. 755, 760-761 (1979); Commonwealth v. Lewis, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 562, 572-573 (1981). Cf. Commonwealth v. Ahearn, 370 Mass. 283, 287 (1976) (pending civilian complaints by defendant against police witnesses); Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315-316 (1974) (confrontation clause of the Sixth Amendment).

The trial judge did not preclude all inquiry into the indictments. Contrast Commonwealth v. Martinez, 384 Mass. 377, 379-381 (1981), and Commonwealth v. Lewis, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 562, 571-573 n. 20 (1981). It was within the judge's discretion to limit the questioning to promises, inducements or hopes of reward and to exclude questions concerning the facts of the pending charges. See Commonwealth v. Jackson, 388 Mass. 98, 112-113 (1983).

This was not a case where the pendency of indictments against the testifying witness was sought to be shown to raise the issue of the bias of that witness. Cf. Commonwealth v. Joyce, 382 Mass. 222, 228-232 (1981); Commonwealth v. Lewis, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 562, 569-573 (1981). The facts underlying this contention are set forth in note 6, supra.

Similarly, there is no merit to the defendant's claim that his rights pursuant to G. L. c. 277, §§ 72 and 72A, as in effect prior to their repeal by St. 1979, c. 344, § 42, were violated. Section 72 required that an incarcerated defendant be tried within six months from the time he was imprisoned. Commonwealth v. Lewis, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 562, 566 (1981). Its violation, however, would call for the defendant's release on personal recognizance, not dismissal of the indictments.

Commonwealth v. Barnes, 399 Mass. 385, 392 (1987). Commonwealth v. Lewis, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 562, 572 (1981). As to defense witnesses, it is a far less persuasive proposition that if they are somehow in the toils of the law, they will, for that reason alone, be disposed to testify falsely against the government and in favor of the defendant.

See Commonwealth v. Haywood, 377 Mass. 755, 762-763 (1979). Compare Commonwealth v. Lewis, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 562, 569-573 (1981). 3. It is apparent from our recitation of the evidence that it was sufficient to enable the jury to find from the circumstances and from the conduct of Henson and DiBlasio that she possessed the requisite mental state to warrant her convictions of the crimes charged.

The trial judge, however, retains the discretion to appraise the materiality of the testimony sought to be introduced. Commonwealth v. Haywood, 377 Mass. 755, 761 (1979). Where, as here, the alleged bias arose more than a year after the complaint and identification had been made (contrast Commonwealth v. Hogan, supra at 191, and Commonwealth v. Joyce, 382 Mass. 222, 225 n. 2 [1981]) and where the witness's trial testimony substantially tracked her earlier statements (contrast Commonwealth v. Lewis, 12 Mass. App. Ct. 562, 572 [1981]), the judge was within his discretion in concluding that no bias would be shown by introduction of the complainant's arrest record. Commonwealth v. Haywood, supra at 761-763; Commonwealth v. Best, 381 Mass. 472, 488-490 (1980).