to require the court to adjudicate the contempt charge. Conclusion The superior court's dismissal of the contempt charge in this case is AFFIRMED. 1 . Browder, 486 P.2d at 933-34; Johansen, 491 P.2d at 763. 2 . Johansen, 491 P.2d at 763. 3 . See United States v. United Mine Workers of America, 330 U.S. 258, 67 S.Ct. 677, 91 L.Ed 884 (1947). 4 . Continental Insurance Companies v. Bayless & Roberts, Inc., 548 P.2d 398, 410-11 (Alaska 1976). 5 . Continental Insurance Companies v. Bayless & Roberts, Inc., 548 P.2d 398, 408-09 (Alaska 1976). 6 . 391 U.S. 194, 196, 88 S.Ct 1477, 1479, 20 L.Ed.2d 522 (1968). 7 . See Taylor v. State, 977 P.2d 123, 124 n. 1 (Alaska App.1999) (explaining the technical meaning of "ex parte "). 8 . See United States v. Neal, 101 F.3d 993, 998 (4th Cir.1996) (<HOLDING>). 9 . Browder, 486 P.2d at 939; Bloom v.
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 trial courts admonition of a witness even though detailed and strongly stated did not coerce the witness because the court did not threaten or badger the witness and the court provided the witness with her own counsel to ensure that the decision was voluntary holding that promises made by the prosecution to a witness in exchange for that witness testimony relate directly to the credibility of the witness holding that the failure of a witness to appear in response to a subpoena was an indirect contempt since the court did not witness all of the essential elements of the misconduct holding that the failure to appear in court pursuant to a court order can constitute direct criminal contempt