of a second jailhouse witness that the State presented. The defense presented its own jailhouse witnesses who claimed that they were present with Mr. Shearod at this time and never heard him say anything incriminating. 2 . After the detective testified to what Mr. Joyner had told him, the State moved to play the audio tape of the interviews to the jury, at which time defense counsel, who knew that Mr. Joyner would not be testifying, finally objected on the basis of Crawford. The trial court overruled that objection, finding that the door had already been opened. 3 . Even had Mr. Joyner waived his Fifth Amendment rights at a pretrial deposition, allowing his statements at trial would still have been a violation of Mr. Shearod’s confrontation right. See Blanton, 978 So.2d at 155 (<HOLDING>). We ask ourselves whether the holding in
holding that the confrontation clause does not apply to the sentencing hearing holding that testimonial hearsay statements of a witness who does not appear at trial are inadmissible under the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment unless the witness is unavailable to testify and the defendant has had a prior opportunity to crossexamine the witness holding that the exercise of the right to take a discovery deposition under rule 3220 does not serve as the functional substitute for incourt confrontation of the witness holding that the polices torturing of a witness until he provided incourt testimony incriminating the defendant violated the defendants right to due process holding that doctrine does not violate right of confrontation