With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". that the Confrontation Clause bars the “admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify, and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.” Id. at 53-54, 124 S.Ct. 1354. The Confrontation Clause was thus deemed to guarantee the opportunity for cross-examination as the procedural mechanism for testing the reliability of evidence: To be sure, the Clause’s ultimate goal is to ensure reliability of evidence, but it is a procedural rather than a substantive guarantee. It commands, not that evidence be reliable, but that reliability be assessed in a particular manner: by testing in the crucible of cross-examination. Id. at 61, 124 S.Ct. 1354; see also State v. Gorman, 2004 ME 90, ¶ 46, 854 A.2d 1164, 1175 (<HOLDING>). [¶ 12] Crawford treated “testimony” as being

A: holding that the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial hearsay
B: holding coconspirator hearsay exception does not violate confrontation clause
C: recognizing that statements admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule may be inadmissible when tested against the confrontation clause  because confrontation clause analysis differs from hearsay rule analysis
D: holding that statements within a firmly rooted hearsay exception do not violate the confrontation clause
C.