to consider the forfeiture issue at the time they are confronted with a Confrontation Clause objection. When making its forfeiture determination, a court should consider the evidence admitted up to that point in the proceeding and, if necessary, hold a hearing outside the presence of the jury to take additional evidence. If there is sufficient evidence to demonstrate forfeiture, the court should admit the evidence over the defendant’s objection and set forth on the record its factual findings that support a forfeiture to allow for a meaningful appellate review of the forfeiture issue. 6 . Several courts have applied the forfeiture by wrongdoing doctrine in cases where the defendant is charged with the same homicide that rendered the witness unavailable. See Giles, 19 Cal.Rptr.3d at 851 (<HOLDING>); People v. Moore, No. 01CA1760, — P.3d —, —,
holding that if the reason the victim cannot testify at trial is that the accused murdered her then the accused should be deemed to have forfeited the confrontation right even though the act with which the accused is charged is the same as the one by which he allegedly rendered the witness unavailable holding that an accused may not complain if the statute of limitations is extended so long as the period of time originally provided therein had not run at the time of such extension because an accused does not acquire any vested right in a statute of limitations until it has operated to bar the prosecution of the offense with which he has been charged holding that waiver by attorney was binding upon the accused when before the state introduced the evidence complained of on appeal counsel for the state in the presence of the accused and his counsel stated the agreement and the evidence of the witness was then read to the jury in the presence of the accused and his counsel without objection holding that police failure to inform the accused of his attorneys attempts to contact him and misstatements to the attorney as to whether the accused was at the police station did not violate the accuseds due process rights holding that where a states witness has not gained a concrete benefit for his testimony by way of a deal with the state and the accused is permitted broad scope in exposing the potential for bias in the witnesss testimony the trial court did not err in not allowing the accused to crossexamine the witness about possible recidivist penalties that he faced