With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". can obtain habeas relief if the state court adjudication “involved an unreasonable application of[] clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1). But even if a state court made a constitutional error within the meaning of this provision, the federal court must also assess whether the error was prejudicial. Ortiz v. Yates, 704 F.3d 1026, 1038 (9th Cir. 2012). Here, Jaffe argues that evidence was admitted at his trial unconstitutionally via a transcript of Officer David Miller’s testimony during a preliminary hearing. Miller was not available to testify at trial, and Jaffe argues he was unable to cross-examine Miller effectively. See Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 59, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) (<HOLDING>). Assuming without deciding that the state

A: 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
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 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
D: holding that testimonial evidence is admissible only if the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to crossexamine the declarant
C.