Tyler v. State

DAVIS, Judge,

dissenting in which BLOOM, J., joins.

I dissent from that portion of this Court’s opinion holding that the testimony given at Eiland’s December 1993 trial was admissible against Tyler. I fully concur with the dissenting opinion of Judge Salmon. I write separately to articulate my particularized concern that the admission of Eiland’s prior testimony violated Tyler’s Sixth Amendment right to confrontation.

*572Commentators have long associated the Confrontation Clause with the notorious abuses at the trial of Sir Walter Raleigh in 1603. As one commentator explained:

The chief evidence…