337, 339, 39 L.Ed 409 (1895)] Although the constitutional right to confrontation is firmly entrenched in American jurisprudence, the right is not absolute. Craig, supra, 497 U.S. at 844, 110 S.Ct. at 3163, 111 L.Ed.2d at 677. Both the United States Supreme Court and this Court have held that the right is subject to certain exceptions of consequence. Id. at 857, 110 S.Ct. at 3170, 111 L.Ed.2d at 686 (using closed circuit television testimony does not violate Confrontation Clause where child witness fears defendant); Idaho v. Wright, 497 U.S. 805, 110 S.Ct. 3139, 111 L.Ed.2d 638 (1990) (admitting hearsay statements into evidence does not violate Confrontation Clause when statements have sufficient indicia of reliability); Coy v. Iowa, 487 U.S. 1012, 108 S.Ct. 2798, 101 L.Ed.2d 857 (1988) (<HOLDING>); Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39, 107
holding that where statutory or regulatory provisions which evidence the public policy themselves provide a remedy for the wrongful discharge provision of a further remedy under the public policy exception is unnecessary holding an exception to confrontation clause must further important public policy recognizing the public interest exception recognizing public policy exception to atwill doctrine holding that a judges infringement of an important public policy is grounds for aggravation