With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 773 F.2d 549, 553-54 (4th Cir.1985); United States v. Ramos, 725 F.2d 1322, 1324 (11th Cir.1984); People v. Anderson, 113 Ill.2d 1, 99 Ill.Dec. 104, 495 N.E.2d 485, cert. denied, — U.S. -, 107 S.Ct. 658, 93 L.Ed.2d 713 (1986). We do not discuss the admbsibility of any hearsay that might be contained in the test protocols prepared by Dr. Gibbs, since we hold the court had sufficient grounds to exclude Dr. Smith's testimony when Clifford’s attorney refused to produce the protocols for inspection by the government prior to Dr. Smith’s testimony before the jury. We do note, though, that hearsay evidence against a criminal defendant may raise question of the defendant’s constitutional right to confront witnesses. See Ohio v. Roberts, 448 U.S. 56, 100 S.Ct. 2531, 65 L.Ed.2d 597 (1980) (<HOLDING>); Wright, 251 U.S.App.D.C. at 286, 783 F.2d at

A: holding that the district court did not err in relying on hearsay evidence where the government offered reasons why its hearsay evidence had indicia of reliability and the court considered the reliability of the evidence in deciding the weight to give the hearsay evidence
B: holding that there was no confrontation clause violation arising from admission of excited utterance since victim was unavailable and the exception is firmly rooted thereby providing adequate indicia of reliability
C: holding that hearsay evidence does not violate the confrontation clause if declarant is unavailable and it bears adequate indicia of reliability
D: holding coconspirator hearsay exception does not violate confrontation clause
C.