L.Ed.2d 574 (1995). To be sure, “ ‘simply putting a child on the stand, regardless of her mental maturity, is not sufficient to eliminate all Confrontation Clause concerns.’ ” Id. at 352 (quoting United States v. Spotted War Bonnet, 933 F.2d 1471, 1474 (8th Cir.1991)). Neither we nor the Supreme Court, however, has ever held that a witness’ loss of memory may be the basis for a Confrontation Clause violation. ’ “A witness’ lack of recollection does not constitute an inability to cross-examine.” United States v. Knox, 124 F.3d 1360, 1364 (10th Cir.1997). “Ordinarily, a witness is regarded as ‘subject to cross-examination’ when [s]he is placed on the stand, under oath, and responds willingly to questions.” United States v. Owens, 484 U.S. 554, 561, 108 S.Ct. 838, 98 L.Ed.2d 951 (1988) (<HOLDING>). The Confrontation Clause “guarantees only an
holding that admission of a witness prior identification statement where the witness could not remember the basis for the identification did not violate the confrontation clause or fedrevid 802 holding that the confrontation clause bars admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless the witness was unavailable to testify and the defendant had a prior opportunity for crossexamination holding that witness had an independent basis to support incourt identification where the description made prior to any pretrial identification was substantially an accurate description of the defendant holding that where the opportunity for positive identification is good and not weakened by prior failure to identify and the witness is positive in his identification even after crossexamination identification need not be received with caution 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