With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of those alleles.”). Contrary to defendant’s assertion, evidence that Hilario’s DNA matched that of the blood found on defendant’s clothing had "little probative value without Quartaro’s expert testimony — “[e]vidence of a match based on currently used testing processes is meaningless without evidence indicating the significance of the match.” Id. at 109 (quotin issue, was the very witness that the Supreme Court deemed necessary in Bullcoming: “the analysts who write reports that the prosecution introduces must be made available for confrontation even if they possess ‘the scientific acumen of Mme. Curie and the veracity of Mother Teresa.’ ” Bullcoming, 131 S.Ct. at 2715 (quoting Melendez-Diaz, 129 S.Ct. at 2537 n. 6); see also United States v. Moore, 651 F.3d 30, 71 (D.C.Cir.2011) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Boyd, 686 F.Supp.2d 382, 385

A: holding that because a witness testified that he authored the reports at issue and was available for crossexamination at trial the admittance of those reports presented no confrontation clause problem under bullcoming
B: holding that there was no violation of defendants confrontation rights where minor victim testified at trial and was available for recall after admission of her hearsay statements
C: holding that court was within its discretion to refuse to consider reports that did not meet the supreme courts standards for admitting reports into evidence
D: holding that the confrontation clause bars admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless the witness was unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity for crossexamination
A.