Jessica is charged with first degree murder. At trial, the prosecution offers a written statement from Tanya, a witness to the crime, who prepared the statement at the request of investigating police officer. Tanya is now dead. Her statement includes a description of the perpetrator, and the characteristics match those of Jessica. The court holds that the written statement is hearsay that does not fit within the regular exceptions to the hearsay rule, but that it satisfies the residual exception under FRE 807. Jessica's defense attorneys argue that the evidence should not be admitted because it would violate her confrontation rights under the 6th Amendment. Which of the following statements is most likely correct? A. Because the evidence satisfies the requirements of the residual hearsay exception, which include considerations of reliability, Tanya's statement is admissible despite the Confrontation Clause. B. Because Tanya's statement is testimonial in nature and Jessica never had a chance to cross-examine her, and because she is now unavailable, the court must exclude the statement. C. Because Tanya's statement is not testimonial, the court may admit it despite the Confrontation Clause. D. Because the residual exception is not "firmly rooted," the court may not admit Tanya's statement