When, if ever, does a preliminary hearing provide an 'adequate opportunity' for cross-examination under the Confrontation Clause?

QUESTION PRESENTED In Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (2004), this Court explained that, under the Confrontation Clause, an unavailable witness’s prior testimony “is admissible only if the defendant had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine.” Jd. at 57. But the Court has provided no further guidance on what an “adequate opportunity” requires. And the States are now openly divided over when, if ever, a preliminary hearing meets the constitutional standard. Some state high courts hold that a preliminary hearing never provides such an adequate opportunity. Others hold that any opportunity to cross-examine at a preliminary hearing is enough. Still others apply a case-by-case approach that falls somewhere in the middle. The question presented is as follows: When, if ever, does a preliminary hearing provide an “adequate opportunity” for cross-examination under the Confrontation Clause? ii STATEMENT OF