Walker, an eyewitness, testifies at Dan's criminal trial for the prosecution. Dan's defense attorney decides to ask no questions on cross-examination. When four of the twelve witnesses come down with Covid, the court declares a mistrial. Six months later, the government retries Dan. Before this second trial, Walker dies. The prosecution wants to admit the testimony of Walker from his first trial. The defense argues that this violates, Dan's confrontation clause rights. The Court should rule that: Question 35 options: a) Walker's prior testimony is inadmissible because Dan's defense attorney did not cross examine Walker at the first trial. b) Walker's prior testimony is admissible because there is a small possibility that Dan caused Walker's death. c) Walker's prior testimony is inadmissible because the second trial is a separate proceeding and the confrontation clause resets at every proceeding. d) Walker's prior testimony is admissible because Dan's defense attorney had the opportunity to crosse examine Walker at the first trial