What I think I'd heard/read is that if there's proven to be things untrue in those statements that might cause it to be allowed under the exceptions...so would things like Deedee saying Trayvon told her he was rushing because of the game, when there's seemingly proof that he was taking his sweet time...
...could that be the kind of thing that keeps her testimony from being allowed at all?
That must have been one of my comments. I don't think anyone else has taken an interest in this. I would like to hear what some of the lawyers think.Fla. Stat. § 90.803:
SPONTANEOUS STATEMENT.—A spontaneous statement describing or explaining an event or condition made while the declarant was perceiving the event or condition, or immediately thereafter, except when such statement is made under circumstances that indicate its lack of trustworthiness.
I googled for case law on this and didn't find anything on point. I did get the impression that trial judges have a lot of discretion in this area. In other words, if the trial judge admits Dee Dee's testimony, and Zimmerman makes that a ground for appeal, it's not likely the appellate court would overturn the conviction on that ground.
So, it's not a question of hard and fast rules, but of what the trial judge finds persuasive.
Again, that's a non lawyer's opinion/guess, and I'd really like to hear from the lawyers on this.