prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right * * * to be confronted with the witnesses against him. U.S. Const, amend. VI. However, the Confrontation Clause does not preclude admission of an out-of-court statement if admission of the statement is necessary, and the statement bears adequate indicia of reliability. State v. Roby, 463 N.W.2d 506, 509 (Minn. 1990). Because DeVerney and Greenleaf are unavailable due to their refusal to testify, their statements are necessary. See Byers, 570 N.W.2d at 494. In addition, the same guarantees of trustworthiness that rendered the prior testimony admissible under the catchall exception to the hearsay rule satisfy the requirements of the Confrontation Clause. See Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 822, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 3150, 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990) (<HOLDING>). In determining whether the statements satisfy
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 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 holding that factors used in determining whether hearsay statements are sufficiently reliable to satisfy hearsay exceptions also apply to whether statements have sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness under confrontation clause holding that an appellate court may review the entire record to determine whether hearsay statements are sufficiently reliable 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