With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". The USSC concluded “[t]he unpardonable vice of the Roberts test.. [was] not its unpredictability, but its demonstrated capacity to admit core testimonial statements that the Confrontation Clause plainly meant to exclude.” Id. at 63, 124 S.Ct. 1354. Upon reconsideration of Roberts, the USSC held the Confrontation Clause bars admission of testimonial hearsay statements of a witness absent from trial unless: (1) the declarant is unavailable to testify at trial, and (2) the accused had a prior opportunity to cross-examine the declarant. 541 U.S. at 53-54, 58, 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354. Thus, even if a statement is admissible hearsay, the Confrontation Clause may operate to render the otherwise admissible hearsay evidence inadmissible if it is testimonial in nature. See id. at 68, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (<HOLDING>). Included within the “core class of

A: holding of crawford applies only to testimonial hearsay
B: holding testimonial evidence implicates the sixth amendment which demands unavailability and a prior opportunity for crossexamination but the admission of nontestimonial hearsay evidence remains the province of each states development of hearsay law
C: holding that the confrontation clause applies only to testimonial hearsay
D: 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.