Very well written and very well reasoned. I still disagree with the majority ruling, though. And, as well written as your reply is, I note that you never correlated your reasoning with the Confrontation Clause. Without that, your reply has much appeal. When you factor that in however, the passionate may not always agree with the reasonable. If given a choice, and on this particular issue, i.e., the confrontation clause, I side with reason.
If the testimony of the dying man is sufficient for probable cause for an arrest (and it is) then the same testimony should be admissible in court. As to the Confrontation Clause there is no real issue. Though the witness is not available for cross-examination his testimony can still be challenged by the defense. Evidence could be produced (if it exists) that impugns the witness’ integrity, eyesight, disinterestedness.
I don’t think people are arguing that such testimony would be sufficient by itself to convict but the jury should be able to assign the proper weight to it.