523 U.S. at 308, 118 S.Ct. 1261 (internal citations omitted). In order for a claimed violation to rise to the level of constitutional deprivation, the evidence sought to be introduced must be deemed to have been “particularly significant” or a “fundamental element of the accused’s defense.” Similarly, the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment guarantees to the criminal defendant the right “to be confronted with the witnesses against him.” U.S. Const., am. VI, cl. 5. The Supreme Court has held that this right “means more than being allowed to confront the witness physically. ‘Our cases construing the [confrontation] clause hold that a primary interest secured by it is the right of cross-examination.’ ” Davis v. Alaska, 415 U.S. 308, 315, 94 S.Ct. 1105, 39 L.Ed.2d 347 (1974) (<HOLDING>) (quoting Douglas v. Alabama, 380 U.S. 415,
recognizing the importance of crossexamining a witness regarding bias recognizing the importance of the employers knowledge of the disability recognizing the importance of grand jury secrecy recognizing importance of transcript to rehabilitation of debtor recognizing the diminished importance of the state policy factor