Opinion ID: 415577
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the confrontation challenge.

Text: 36 In addition to contending that Steel's prior testimony was inadmissible hearsay, appellants argue that the admission of Steel's prior testimony violated their right to confront the witnesses against them as required by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. 17 We disagree. As the foregoing discussion of appellants' hearsay challenge demonstrates, Ohio v. Roberts, supra, and California v. Green, supra, compel the conclusion that there has been no Confrontation Clause violation in this case. 37 Moreover, in evaluating appellants' Confrontation Clause challenge, we can consider fully the fact that Steel was present at the second trial and was cross-examined with respect to the sequestration violation. 18 California v. Green, 399 U.S. at 153-164, 90 S.Ct. at 1932-38. Similarly, we can consider the fact that the jury at the second trial was made aware of the sequestration violation through the testimony of a witness, Fitzpatrick. These considerations add strength to our conclusion that there is no merit in appellants' Confrontation Clause challenge. 38