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

United States v. Morgan, 505 F.3d 332, 339 (5th Cir. 2007) (upholding trial court's admission of patient beneficiary records provided by Davies because "business records [were] not testimonial in nature....The right of confrontation guaranteed by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution puts no constraints on the admissibility of nontestimonial hearsay statements; the federal constitutional right of confrontation does not apply to such statements.

Fed. R. Evid. 807 ("However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent of it makes known to the adverse party sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent's intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it,...The catchall or omnibus hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 807 or a comparable State rule is available only if the proponent of a statement under this exception makes known to the adverse party sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet the statement, the proponent's intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant.

Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, pin? (2006).The right to due process guaranteed by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments prohibits the exclusion of probative exculpatory evidence in criminal trials when exclusion of such evidence is unreasonable, arbitrary, or disproportionate.