How have the Attorney General argued that a defendant has forfeited her constitutional right to confront under the confrontation clause?

As an initial matter, the Attorney General contends that defendant has forfeited her constitutional claim because she failed to object at trial that the exclusion of evidence would violate her rights under the confrontation clause. (See People v. Burgener (2003) 29 Cal.4th 833, 869 [failure to object that admission of evidence violated federal rights to due process and confrontation waived by failing to articulate them below].) Defendant contends that no contemporaneous objection was required because trial counsel "litigated the issue in pre-trial motions," although trial counsel framed the issue in terms of due process. We need not tarry over this argument, because there is no merit at all to the

Page 8