In Crawford, the defendant and his wife Sylvia were both given Miranda warnings and questioned at the police station. Crawford, 541 U.S. at 38, 65,124 S.Ct. 1354. The Court held that Sylvia’s statement was testimonial because it was given in response to “police interrogation.” Id. at 52, 53 n. 4, 124 S.Ct. 1354. While declining to give a more specific definition of the term “interrogation,” the Court held that “Sylvia’s recorded statement, knowingly given in response to structured police questioning, qualifies under any conceivable definition.” Id. {50} Many courts have held that statements given in response to formal, structured interviews by law enforcement personnel qualify as testimonial under Crawford. See, e.g., United States v. Saget, 377 F.3d 223, 228 (2d Cir.2004) (<HOLDING>); Commonwealth v. Foley, 445 Mass. 1001, 833
holding that postmmmda statement knowingly given in response to structured police questioning was testimonial holding witnesss formal signed written statement given at the police station one hour after the crime following structured police questioning was testimonial holding declarants statements to 911 operator were not testimonial when defendant was still present during phone call holding testimonial statements to include those involving a declarants knowing responses to structured questioning in an investigative environment holding victims statement testimonial where it was elicited in response to structured police questioning pursuant to a police investigation