statement introduced that is testimonial, but once “the declarant appears for cross-examination at trial, the Confrontation Clause places no constraints at all on the use of his prior testimonial statements.” 541 U.S. 36, 59 n.9 (2004). M.C. testified prior to the admission of the videotape, but defendant was entirely free to recall her to the stand for cross-examination. He did not, and therefore he cannot show that his right to confront adverse witnesses was violated. See LaBounty, 168 Vt. at 139, 716 A.2d at 8 (rejecting defendant’s assertion that timing of admitting minor victim’s hearsay statements deprived him of opportunity to confront victim because defendant had opportunity and declined to call victim to testify); State v. Gallagher, 150 Vt. 341, 344, 554 A.2d 221, 223 (1988) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 11. Finally, defendant contends that the
holding that the sixth amendment confrontation clause was not violated by the admission of hearsay statements under a georgia statute permitting an exception for statements by coconspirators where there was sufficient indicia of reliability supporting the truth of the statements holding that there was no violation of defendants confrontation rights where minor victim testified at trial and was available for recall after admission of her hearsay statements holding that the sixth amendment right of confrontation applies to all three phases of the capital trial and that the admission of  hearsay statements of codefendants in the penalty phase violated the confrontation clause holding that the confrontation clause of the sixth amendment is not violated by the admission of hearsay statements under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule where the defendant was able to confront and crossexamine the witness who claimed that the statements at issue were made holding that erroneous admission of hearsay medical notes was harmless error when doctor testified and was subject to crossexamination