541 US at 52-53, 68. “Statements taken by police officers in the course of interrogations *** bear a striking resemblance to examinations by justices of the peace in England” who were discharging “essentially [an] investigative and prosecutorial function.” Id. at 52-53. “The involvement of government officers in the production of testimonial evidence presents the same risk, whether the officers are police or justices of the peace.” Id. at 53. The second involves the use of prior testimony concerning the guilt of the defendant in lieu of live testimony from the same witness at the defendant’s present trial. From the beginning of its jurisprudence concerning Article I, section 11, this court has grappled with that issue. See, e.g., State v. Moen, 309 Or 45, 64, 786 P2d 111 (1990) (<HOLDING>); State v. Von Klein, 71 Or 159, 165-69, 142 P
holding prosecutions failure to disclose promise of leniency to witness provided in exchange for that witnesss testimony violated due process holding that trial court did not err in refusing to allow defendant to introduce evidence of witnesss pending indictment when witnesss testimony regarding defendants participation in murder was virtually identical to witnesss written statement which was sworn to on day of murder and prior to offense for which witness was indicted holding that where a witness is unavailable for trial article i section 11 is not violated by admission of transcript of that witnesss prior sworn testimony provided statutory prerequisites of oec 8043a are met holding that a trial witnesss testimony as to the credibility of another witness was prejudicial error holding that the admission of prior testimony that had been subjected to crossexamination violated the confrontation clause because the state did not prove that the witness was unavailable