The Court has identified evidence reliability as the central value of the confrontation clause. It has approved out-of-court, non-confronted evidence provided it was sufficiently trustworthy. Yet, the justices often disagree about what kind of evidence meets their reliability standard since this kind of evidence may compromise the criminal defendant's right to confront his or her accusers. The theory fails to consider the intrinsic value of confrontation which is to preserve the dignity of the defendant. An alternative theory- the individual dignity theory- is one that corresponds with common notions of fairness to the accused, responds to the theoretical deficiencies in the Court's confrontation analysis, and fairly accommodates both the rights of the defendant and the practicalities of routine litigation. Every reasonable attempt to secure the presence of the witnesses against the accused must be made. When it is impossible, the out of court accusation can be admitted without offending the individual dignity value of the confrontation guarantee. 171 notes.