Five-year-old Larry was kidnapped from his bedroom on the second floor of his family home. The next day, Larry's parents received an email from an anonymous source demanding $1 million in ransom. Attached to the email was a photo of Larry next to two people who were wearing masks and carrying guns.

Later that day, the police traced the source of the email to a company named Acme Plumbing. The police rushed to the location of the company where they found an employee, Bruno, who was questioned as follows:

Police:Where's Larry the child? What have you done with him?

Bruno:Don't worry, Larry is safe. My boss Perry knows where he is.

Police:Where is Perry?

Bruno:He's not here. We're meeting in one hour to fix the pipes at the local library.

The police staked out the library. As scheduled, Perry showed up one hour later and was immediately arrested.He refused to cooperate.

Shortly thereafter, Larry was found sleeping in a house across the street from where Acme Plumbing is located.

Bruno and Perry were charged with kidnapping and conspiracy. At the jury trial, each defendant asserted his Fifth Amendment privilege and refused to testify. At the trial, the prosecution offered into evidence the statements that Bruno made to the police at Acme Plumbing. Assume that the trial judge ruled correctly under the Federal Rules of Evidence that Bruno's statements to the police are admissible for their truth against both Bruno and Perry.

As the defense lawyer for Perry, you object to the introduction into evidence of Bruno's statements to the police under the Confrontation Clause of the 6th Amendment to the United States Constitution. For this objection, specifically identify: (a) the applicable legal rules and authority and (b) the legal arguments for and against each side in the application of the rules and authority.