The Spontaneous Statement exception to the Hearsay rule has been around for years. It is when the person testifying in court as to the content of the hearsay is testifying to an unavailable persons out of court statements which describe or narrate a relevant series of events at or near the time they occurred. Now that I state it I can’t remember now if the person relating the hearsay must have been relating what a percipient witness saw I think so. In this case Martin would be a percipient witness narrating an ongoing event to the “mystery” witness. I’m aware of a case where the judge admitted a witness’ testimony where the witness was relating a description by a missing percipient witness as to how an accident occurred. If I have not grossly forgotten the rule I think the girls testimony is admissible. In a real world this girls credibility would be zero. I guess Florida allows depositions in criminal cases and this girl if I remember correctly was hidden from the defense-with the courts approval!
But , IF the verbal testimony hadn’t been tainted/destroyed by the prosecurtor’s office by State approved technicians,,
wouldn’t that fact be presented to the jury as well ?
Since the State destroyed any evidence of the existance / truth of that testimony , doesn’t that weaken the testimony of ‘Dee Dee’/ Rachel ?
The evidence containeed on the cellphone would either proove , or disproove ‘Dee Dee / Rachel’s testimony .
Is it appropriate to ask ‘Dee Dee’ how many times she met with spoke with Crump or State Proseceutors Office in preparation for giving testimony ?
Is it appropriate to ask how Crump contacted her , and how he learned about her existance ,and when he learned it ?
One of the things that I remember when ‘Dee Dee first came up is that she was ‘unavaiable’, as Crump indicated she was a minor.
My understanding is that she is significantly older than orgininally indicated by Crump .
Doesn’t this age issue discredit Crump ? and /or her current testimony ?