Rule of Evidence 611(a) recognizes: (a) Control by court. The court shall exercise reasonable control over the mode and order of interrogating witnesses and presenting evidence so as to (1) make the interrogation and presentation effective for the ascertainment of the truth, (2) avoid needless consumption of time, and (3) protect witnesses from harassment or undue embarrassment. While Federal Rule of Evidence 611(a) provides a trial court with “reasonable control” as to the “mode and order of interrogating witnesses and pr ates that testimony shall be taken orally in open court. Use of declarations in lieu of the above requirement may occur, however, only if admissable under the Federal Rules of Evidence. See Walton v. United Consumers Club, Inc., 786 F.2d 303, 313 (7th Cir.1986) (<HOLDING>). Fed.R.Evid. 801(c) defines “hearsay” as “a
holding that the admission of testimonial statements against a defendant is unconstitutional when the declarant does not appear at trial unless the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity for crossexamination holding that testimonial evidence is admissible only if the declarant is unavailable and the defendant had a prior opportunity to crossexamine the declarant holding that answers to written interrogatories in lieu of direct testimony was improper even though the declarant was available for crossexamination holding that the primary rationale for the exclusion of hearsay testimony is the inability of the opposition to test the testimonys reliability through crossexamination of the outofcourt declarant holding that it was permissible for the state to test the credibility of appellants trial testimony by crossexamination