Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): § 4.3(e), at 473 n. 56. As the Second Circuit has held: The moral, religious and legal significance of the undertaking remains the same whether the oath taker and the witness communicate face-to-face or over the telephone. In a ritualistic sense, it may be that an oath taken over the telephone appears less formal or less solemn than one taken in the physical presence of the oath taker. The constitutionality of oaths does not depend, however, on such purely ritualistic considerations. Turner, 558 F.2d at 50. So, here, the mere fact that the Probable Cause Statement was faxed, rather than presented in person, to the magistrate judge does not violate the Fourth Amendment. See Jones v. City of Santa Monica, 382 F.3d 1052, 2004 WL 2047140, 2004 WL 2021285, at *3 (9th Cir. Sept. 10, 2004) (<HOLDING>). Because he gave the Statement under penalty 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the admission of testimonial statements against a defendant is unconstitutional when the declarant does not appear at trial unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for crossexamination (B) holding that a preprinted probablecause form sent to the magistrate judge which requires a signed statement by the declarant under penalty of perjury that the statements that follow are true satisfies the fourth amendment (C) holding that excessive force claims are to be treated under the fourth amendment (D) holding that testimonial evidence is admissible only if the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to crossexamine the declarant (E) holding that an inculpatory statement by a declarant was not reliable when he viewed the defendant like an older brother providing a motivation to lie the statement was made only to defense investigators and not to prosecutors the declarant was not under oath had not been read his miranda rights and was not represented by counsel and the declarant ultimately recanted his admission
Output (English): holding that the admission of testimonial statements against a defendant is unconstitutional when the declarant does not appear at trial unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for crossexamination