Specifically, the Confrontation Clause applies to "witnesses" against the accused, meaning "those who 'bear testimony'".

He added that in excluding the statement to the police, the court "extends the Confrontation Clause far beyond the abuses it was intended to prevent."

But the court stopped short of defining the various types of "testimonial" statements to which the newly empowered Confrontation Clause would now apply.

It further identified four primary guarantees embodied in the Confrontation Clause:

Example: Unlike the Confrontation Clause, those provisions are of no use to the defendant when the witness is unavailable or simply refuses to appear.

The Supreme Court held that the daughter's statement did not violate the Confrontation Clause.

Finally, it explained the relationship between the Confrontation Clause and the Business Records Exception.

It noted that several states had already passed Constitutional statutes that satisfied the requirements of the Confrontation Clause.

The Court stressed that the requirements of the Confrontation Clause are "binding" and not to be disregarded.

Secondly, courts must interpret the Confrontation Clause to guarantee protection against a witness' testimony if it is false.