With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". to deliver a subpoena to the witness but was unsuccessful on three separate occasions. Id. at 159-60. The trial court subsequently ruled that the witness's previous testimony could be admitted at trial because Reynolds did not refute that he had been instrumental in concealing or keeping the witness away. Id. at 160. ¶ 39. The Reynolds Court began its analysis with the following: The Constitution gives the accused the right to a trial at which he should be confronted with the witnesses against him; but if a witness is absent by his own wrongful procurement, he cannot complain if competent evidence is admitted to supply the place of that which he has kept away. The Constitution does not guarantee an accused person against the legitima ) overruled by Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U.S. 1 (1964) (<HOLDING>); and Illinois v. Allen, 397 U.S. 337, 343

A: holding that under the sixth amendment any fact which increases the penalty for a crime  eg by triggering a mandatory minimum sentence must be found by the jury beyond a reasonable doubt
B: holding that defendant was permissibly excluded from going to view the scene of the crime as part of his trial in dicta justice cardozo stated that no doubt the privilege afforded by the sixth amendment may be lost by consent or at times even by misconduct
C: holding a defendant was entitled to a directed verdict when none of the evidence presented by the state placed the defendant at the crime scene and the jury was left to speculate as to the defendants guilt
D: holding that reversible error was committed when the court could not determine that the instruction given by the trial justice was sufficient to remove the taint of the statement and such doubt was to be resolved in favor of the defendant
B.