of the evidence, see Garlington v. O’Leary, No. 87 C 871, mem. op. at 10-11, 1988 WL 37790 (N.D.Ill. April 18, 1988); R.30 at 10-11 [hereinafter Mem. op.], the district court concluded that the state’s evidence did “make[] it more likely than not that a conspiracy existed and that Garlington and Key were members of it.” Id. at 13. Thus, the court held that Mr. Key’s statement fell within the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule, and admission of the statement did not violate Mr. Garling-ton’s sixth amendment right to confrontation. The obligation of Illinois is to employ in its criminal proceedings an evidentiary rule that satisfies the confrontation clause of the federal Constitution. See Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400, 403-04, 85 S.Ct. 1065, 1067-68, 13 L.Ed.2d 923 (1965) (<HOLDING>). In Bourjaily, the Supreme Court held that a
holding that the fifth amendments protection against selfincrimination is applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment holding the sixth amendment applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment holding that the confrontation clause is applicable to the states through the fourteenth amendment holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that any confrontation right is found in the fourteenth amendments due process clause not the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment