With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Id., 357 Ill.Dec. 18, 962 N.E.2d at 932-33. On the issue of defense counsel’s knowledge at the time of the preliminary hearing, Torres argued that his counsel did not have an adequate opportunity for cross-examination, because he did not have access to certain discovery, “namely police reports,” which contained the prosecution witness’s statements to police. Id., 357 Ill.Dec. 18, 962 N.E.2d at 923. Defense counsel referenced several statements the witness made to police that were inconsistent with his preliminary hearing testimony. Id. The court agreed with Torres on this issue, stating that the defendant “was not privy to the inconsistent statements [the prosecution’s witness] gave to police, statements that counsel might have used to confront [the witness] and see if furt (2011) (<HOLDING>). However, guided by our pre-Crawford cases, we

A: holding district court did not violate sixth amendment by admitting defendants outofcourt statement
B: holding admission of preliminary hearing testimony did not violate the sixth amendment where defendants motive during crossexamination was the same as at trial
C: holding that exclusion of testimony as collateral and of speculative relevance did not violate defendants sixth and fourteenth amendment rights
D: holding that the victims prior videotaped testimony from a preliminary hearing was admissible as testimony at trial where the victim was unavailable to testify
B.