of Rule 804(b)(6) to permit the admission of those hearsay statements that would be admissible under the constitutional doctrine of waiver by misconduct[.] Id. (internal citation omitted). Despite the court’s acknowledgment that the rules of evidence and the Confrontation Clause are not coextensive, this statement seems to boil down to nothing more than an unsupported assertion that they are indeed coextensive with regard to the forfeiture doctrine. In fact, the Cherry court offered no other support for its conclusion that the elements of the federal rule are constitutionally mandated. Unlike the special concurrence, ¶ 85, we do not believe that Reynolds says anything about whether the intent to silence requirement is required by the constitution. See Reynolds, 98 U.S. at 158-61 (<HOLDING>). Further, we have been able to find no
holding that the defendant forfeited his confrontation rights where he kept the police from finding his wife so she could not testify but not addressing the intent requirement holding that defendant waived his confrontation rights by threatening witness not to testify holding that appellant forfeited his complaint regarding his sentence because he did not object at trial holding that a defendant forfeited his confrontation clause claim by failing to properly preserve it at trial holding that if the witness cannot testify because the defendant murdered her then the defendant is deemed to have forfeited his confrontation rights even though the act he is charged with is the same act that caused the witnesss unavailability