trial court ruled that Gardner’s confession was admis sible and denied Hale’s motion to exclude. Hale then entered negotiated guilty pleas predicated on his right to appeal the trial court’s pretrial ruling concerning the admissibility of Gardner’s confession. The trial court certified Hale’s right to appeal in each case, and these appeals followed. III. Admission of Nontestifying Accomplice’s Confession Violates Confrontation Clause In two points, Hale contends, respectively, that the trial court’s ruling on the admissibility of Gardner’s confession, in light of Gardner’s ref ovo the trial court’s ruling that the admission of Gardner’s confession would not violate Hale’s Confrontation Clause rights. Lilly v. Virginia, 527 U.S. 116, 136-37, 119 S.Ct. 1887, 1900, 144 L.Ed.2d 117 (1999) (<HOLDING>). The Sixth Amendment to the United States
holding that when deciding whether the admission of a declarants outofcourt statements violates the confrontation clause courts should independently review whether the governments proffered guarantees of trustworthiness satisfy the demands of the clause holding that in reviewing confrontation clause challenge appellate courts must first determine whether the confrontation clause is implicated holding that the admission of an accomplices outofcourt confession violated the petitioners confrontation clause rights holding that the confrontation clause does not require a showing of unavailability as a condition precedent to the admission of the outofcourt statements of a nontestifying coconspirator holding that factors used in determining whether hearsay statements are sufficiently reliable to satisfy hearsay exceptions also apply to whether statements have sufficient guarantees of trustworthiness under confrontation clause