With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". out-of-court statements made by the victims of Seibert’s prior crimes. In particular, he referred to Sergeant Hunde-vadt’s testimony regarding Andrea Henderson’s statements and the prosecutor’s reading of Leon Golden’s and Michelle Kendricks’s statements to police. Seibert claimed that counsel should have objected to admission of the statements on the basis that the statements were hearsay and that Seibert had no opportunity to rebut them and that this constituted a Confrontation Clause violation. Had counsel objected on these grounds, Seibert contends, the jury might not have heard the prejudicial testimony, and the issue would have been preserved for appeal and may have provided a basis for relief under Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354, 158 L.Ed.2d 177 (2004) (<HOLDING>), which was decided in the interim between

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 evidence is admissible only if the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to crossexamine the declarant
C: holding that hearsay evidence does not violate the confrontation clause if declarant is unavailable and it bears adequate indicia of reliability
D: holding that when declarant is unavailable outofcourt statements that are testimonial are inadmissible even if they meet an exception to the hearsay rules
B.