[alexandria]

The Clause’s primary object is testimonial hearsay, and interrogations by law enforcement officers fall squarely within that class.
Second, the Framers would not have allowed admission of testimonial statements of a witness who did not appear at trial unless he was unavailable to testify and the defendant had had a prior opportunity for cross-examination.

So does this also include those various "informants" of law enforcement? Since interrogations by LE fall into the class of testimonial hearsay I can't imagine that a person who essentially tells LE what they want to hear to get a lesser charge, or be let go entirely, would be above hearsay.

[ontos-on]

the informant would have to testify at trial and be subject to cross-examimniation.

[Enterprise]

Another thing I am curious about would be the domestic violence cases. At times, the police approach the scene and the victim makes a "spontaneous statement" about what happened, and it is used against him at trial even if the victim refuses to testify. So, if a guy gets arrested for spousal abuse, and she makes a "spontaneous statement" but later refuses to testify, does he walk?

[archy]

So does this also include those various "informants" of law enforcement? Since interrogations by LE fall into the class of testimonial hearsay I can't imagine that a person who essentially tells LE what they want to hear to get a lesser charge, or be let go entirely, would be above hearsay.

This means that police who attempt to keep the name od secret informants from a defendent are committing a felony civil rights violation, a felony in and of itself. We'll see what effect this decision has on 800-number *turn in a Jew* anonymous tiplines.