Another formulation of the test is whether the restitution award would have been any different had defense counsel been allowed to demonstrate Pyle’s bias. Here, the answer is no. In this case, Pyle provided credible evidence of the amount of his losses, and the trial judge gave a reasonable explanation of how he arrived at the adjudicated dollar amount. Specifically, Pyle provided a receipt for his replaced cell phone, and a reasonable (and plausible) explanation for having $200 cash on his person at the time of incident. Moreover, the tri 1996). 6 . U.S. Const, amend. VI (emphasis added). 7 . Del. Const, art. I, § 7 (emphasis added). 8 . People v. Cain, 82 Cal.App.4th 81, 86, 97 Cal.Rptr.2d 836 (Cal.Ct.App.2000); see also United States v. Kirby, 418 F.3d 621, 627-28 (6th Cir.2005) (<HOLDING>); United States v. Petty, 982 F.2d 1365, 1368
holding that confrontation clause protections do not extend to sentencing hearings recognizing that the federal rules of evidence do not apply to sentencing hearings holding that the confrontation clause does not apply to the sentencing hearing holding confrontation clause inapplicable at sentencing holding that the confrontation clause applies only to trials and not to sentencing hearings