Task: Wrong Candidate Generation
Input (English): facts, testimony regarding those facts must be tested through confrontation. If the government thinks it necessary to prove nonstatutory aggravating factors, then it should be required to do so with the Confrontation Clause in tact. C. The Sixth Amendment’s Text Because Williams is inapplicable and no Supreme Court opinion is directly controlling, I turn to the Constitution’s text. The Confrontation Clause applies in “all criminal prosecutions.” U.S. Const. amend. VI. “If ‘plain meaning’ is the criterion, this is an easy ease. Surely no one would contend that sentencing is not a part, and a vital one, of a ‘criminal prosecution.’ ” Wise, 976 F.2d at 407 (Arnold, C.J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); cf. Robertson v. United States, 417 F.2d 440, 447 (5th Cir.1969) (en banc) (<HOLDING>). This reading of the Sixth Amendment’s text 
 Holding statements: (A) holding that the confrontation clause did not apply to proceedings before a draft board because such proceedings are not stages in a criminal prosecution (B) holding that lyness does not apply to residency proceedings before school board (C) holding that the right to counsel applies in all critical stages of state and federal criminal proceedings (D) holding that the confrontation clause does not apply to the sentencing hearing (E) holding that probation revocation proceedings are clearly not criminal proceedings
Output (English): holding that probation revocation proceedings are clearly not criminal proceedings