https://
dlj.law.duke.edu/2016/11/determining-classified-evidences-primary-purpose-the-confrontation-clause-and-classified-information-after-ohio-v-clark/
copypasta:
Evidence derived from classified national-security information has long been a part of court proceedings in the United States. [1] Despite the longstanding nature of its use, it can pose constitutional issues. The Sixth Amendment to the Constitution requires that “[i]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to be confronted with the witnesses against him . . . .” [2] The Supreme Court’s post-Crawford v. Washington [3] interpretation of the Confrontation Clause, including its most recent clarification in Ohio v. Clark, [4] presents a theoretical obstacle to introducing such evidence in criminal trials. Before Crawford, prosecutors were required to show only “indicia of reliability” to support the introduction of evidence over a Confrontation Clause challenge. [5] Crawford and its progeny require the district court to examine whether the out-of-court declarant intended his or her statement to be used in a later prosecution, a far stricter standard. [6] Clark extends Confrontation Clause protection to statements made by out-of-court declarants to non-law enforcement persons, such as members of the intelligence community. [7] The expansion in Clark suggests it is time to reevaluate the constitutionality of the introduction of some classified evidence during a criminal trial.