Was the California Court of Appeal's decision contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, this Court's jurisprudence holding that the Sixth Amendment's Confrontation Clause protects a co-defendant in a joint trial from the introduction of incriminating confessional statements by a non-testifying co-defendant, as recognized in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) and its progeny, or is the Bruton rule subsumed under the testimonial/nontestimonial statement analysis of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), as the Ninth Circuit held here?

QUESTION PRESENTED Was the California Court of Appeal’s decision contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, this Court’s jurisprudence holding that the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause protects a co-defendant in a joint trial from the introduction of incriminating confessional statements by a non-testifying co-defendant, as recognized in Bruton v. United States, 391 U.S. 123 (1968) and its progeny, or is the Bruton rule subsumed under the statement analysis of Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), as the Ninth Circuit held here? i