isn the alito group said it to eliminate this. all these words are taken. we modified our view in the treatise. he had an interesting point. there are cases in which seven of three might work. it is not the williams case. they offer this purpose. it is not fully satisfactory. things are a mess. it is very hard for lower courts to know what to do. is reallyental issue rather the courts are in the business of trying to guess what five justices would do for inconsistent reasons and say that is the law or c.k. coherent. to apply in dealing cases -- or seek a coherent theory to apply in dealing cases. to and whimsically. -- en

amendment another theory that gets very complex you have to be a lover of here say it basically the alito group said it is just the expert testimony about the marriage bet justice taken calls that fiction and on since factually impossible taken from the treatise and i will and to because of the schedule but i just mentioning upon reading justice alito opinion he had interesting point. there are cases that rule 703 might work to get around the confrontation clause but not the williams case. the theories offered for that purpose are not fully satisfactory. so after williams there is no majority opinion very hard for the lower-court stewed know what to do the fundamental issue is really whether the courts try 82 to say that is the law or to say that is the theory to apply and that is the lower-court it were the different. the future? i will end whimsically. >> gentlemen these documents all speak of the rights to accused by his peers the rights of cross-examination the most important they the right to be confronted by the witnesses against him to which my client has been denied a. >> that is ridicu