This is a cross reference. Click here to make the jump.

Davis v. Washington, 547 U.S. 813, pin? (2006) (held, backward-looking pretrial statements made to the police during an investigation whose purpose is to investigate past events rather than to deal with an....The right of confrontation guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States bars the introduction against a criminal defendant of testimonial hearsay by a nontestifying declarant unless (i) the absent declarant is unavailable to testify at trial and (ii) the defendant had an adequate opportunity to cross-examine the absent declarant prior to trial.

Fed. R. Evid. 902(6) ("Printed materials purporting to be newspapers or periodicals.").Federal Rule of Evidence 902(6) provides that any printed materials purporting to be newspapers or periodicals do not need any further authentication; i.e., that any printed material that appears to be a newspaper or a periodical requires no further evidence of authenticity to be admissible in evidence.

Fed. R. Evid. 703 ("unless the court determines that [the] probative value [of inadmissible facts or data] in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert's opinion substantially outweighs their prejudicial effect").Although an expert who relies on inadmissible hearsay for his or her opinion testimony should not be allowed to disclose such hearsay to the jury when giving his or her opinion testimony, the trial court should allow such hearsay to be revealed to the jury if the trial court determines that the probative value of such hearsay in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert's opinion substantially outweighs the prejudicial effect of disclosing such hearsay to the jury.