Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): some fact.’ ” Id. at 51, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (quoting 1 N. Webster, An American Dictionary of the English Language (1828)). Thus, “formal statements] to government officers” are generally testimonial. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 51, 124 S.Ct. 1354. So is “ex parte in-court testimony or its functional equivalent — that is, material such as affidavits, custodial examinations, prior testimony that the defendant was unable to cross-examine, or similar pretrial statements that declarants would reasonably expect to be used proseeutorially.” Id. Similarly, “extrajudicial statements ... ement given by victim to an investigating police officer in White v. Illinois, 502 U.S. 346, 112 S.Ct. 736, 116 L.Ed.2d 848 (1992), as testimonial); see also United States v. Arnold, 410 F.3d 895, 903-04 (6th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>). Admission of non-testimonial hearsay against 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the defendant was guilty of leaving the scene because the injured party and a police officer were present at the scene within a reasonable time after the accident (B) holding that rule of completeness did not apply where statements made at the scene and the statement made at the police station were  distinct and not part of one confession (C) holding declarants statements to 911 operator were not testimonial when defendant was still present during phone call (D) holding that accusers 911 call initial statement to police upon their arrival at the crime scene and statements made to police a short time later were testimonial (E) holding witnesss formal signed written statement given at the police station one hour after the crime following structured police questioning was testimonial
Output (English): holding that rule of completeness did not apply where statements made at the scene and the statement made at the police station were  distinct and not part of one confession