the court gave appropriate cautionary instructions, and the circumstances are not such as to negate the effectiveness of those instructions. Thus, the court’s rulings on these statements readily survive plain error review. See Olmo, 507 U.S. at 732, 113 S.Ct. 1770. Moreover, even if the district court erred in admitting the radio broadcast evidence, it was harmless. Aside from Inge’s broadcast, there was substantial evidence to establish that Inge, McKee, and Joseph Donato had expressed them committed opposition to paying the “war tax.” App. 321, 336-37, 531-33, 624-25, 650-52. Furthermore, Defendants’ conceded their beliefs about the immorality of the federal tax system and their self-exemption from the revenue laws. See Virgin Islands v. Joseph, 964 F.2d 1380-90 (3d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Likewise, there was no plain error in
holding appellate court erred in reversing conviction on confrontation clause grounds because appellant did not clearly articulate to trial court that confrontation clause demanded admission of evidence in question holding that a confrontation clause violation constituted harmless error holding that hearsay argument for admission of evidence did not preserve confrontation clause challenge on appeal argument could have referred either to rules of evidence or confrontation clause but failed to identify confrontation clause as basis and thus did not put trial court on notice of issue holding that confrontation clause violations are subject to harmless error review holding that admission of evidence in violation of confrontation clause was harmless because it did not relate to the contested issue before jury