Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): of the confrontation rule from its inception is not a new rule of constitutional procedure and cannot be restricted to prospective application starting with cases still pending as of 2004. Certainly, while the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit in Brown v. Uphoff correctly noted that “[a] decision by the Supreme Court announces a new rale if ‘the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time [a] defendant’s conviction [becomes] final,’ ” Crawford cannot be said to be new if the precedent was wrong under originalist constitutional principles. That said, we must await the Supreme Court’s final pronouncement as to whether Crawford must be applied retroactively, or only prospectively from the date dictated by it as a “new” rule. 1 541 U.S. 36, 59 (2004) (<HOLDING>). 2 448 U.S. 56 (1980). 3 Id. at 66. 4 121 Nev. 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment is not violated by the admission of hearsay statements under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule where the defendant was able to confront and crossexamine the witness who claimed that the statements at issue were made (B) holding that testimonial hearsay statements of a witness who does not appear at trial are inadmissible under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to crossexamine the witness (C) 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 (D) holding that an absent witnesss statements are admissible under the confrontation clause only where the declarant is unavailable and only where the defendant   had a prior opportunity to crossexamine (E) holding that outofcourt statements by witnesses that are testimonial in nature are barred under the confrontation clause unless witnesses are unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to crossexamine them
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