With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". definition of hearsay. See Fed.R.Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) (“A statement is not hearsay if ... [it is] a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.”). The Supreme Court has held that cocon-spirator statements do not fall within the ambit of the Confrontation Clause, and Crawford did not specifically foreclose the admissibility of such statements. See Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S. 171, 181, 107 S.Ct. 2775, 97 L.Ed.2d 144 (1987) (admitting statements made unwittingly by a co-conspirator to a government informant and rejecting “any suggestion that admission of these statements against petitioner violated his rights under the Confrontation Clause”); United States v. Inadi, 475 U.S. 387, 391, 106 S.Ct. 1121, 89 L.Ed.2d 390 (1986) (<HOLDING>). There is no indication in Crawford that the

A: holding that the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment is not violated by the admission of hearsay statements under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule where the defendant was able to confront and crossexamine the witness who claimed that the statements at issue were made
B: holding that the admission of an accomplices outofcourt confession violated the petitioners confrontation clause rights
C: holding that the confrontation clause does not require a showing of unavailability as a condition precedent to the admission of the outofcourt statements of a nontestifying coconspirator
D: holding that when deciding whether the admission of a declarants outofcourt statements violates the confrontation clause courts should independently review whether the governments proffered guarantees of trustworthiness satisfy the demands of the clause
C.