dissenting.
Petitioner, convicted of arson, bribery, and conspiracy, argues that the introduction of incriminating extra*932judicial statements of a codefendant when the co-defendant was unavailable to testify because of his claim of Fifth Amendment privilege constituted a violation of petitioner’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the witnesses against him. As in Dutton v. Evans, 400 U. S. 74, where this Court rejected a similar claim, I feel that the Sixth Amendment prohibits the State from putting damaging statements before the jury when the defendant has no opportunity to test those statements for truthfulness and meaning through cross-examination of the declarant. See Dutton v. Evans, supra, at 104 (Marshall, J., dissenting).