Reference no: EM133318646

In the period leading up to the trial, Dean's defense team began investigating Carol, Dean's former executive assistant at the import business. Carol gave a statement to the defense investigator in which she said she was the one who really ran the business and took care of all the details, including shipping logistics. In that interview, Carol said the following:

"Dean was clueless about how that business ran. I did everything. I'm the one who met with those shady mob guys and agreed to 'lease' the containers to them. I negotiated the prices. Dean had no idea what was going on behind the scenes. I feel bad for the guy, but that's what happens when you let your underpaid secretary handle all the important decisions."

At the end of the prosecution case, the defense wants to call Carol to testify when they present their case. However, Carol has disappeared. Dean's lawyer confirms that Carol left the country shortly after making her statement to the investigator, and no one can locate her to serve her a trial subpoena. The defense investigator interviewed Carol's family and neighbors, which turned up some clues about where Carol might go. But after tracking Carol's whereabouts through several countries in South America, the trail has gone cold.

Dean's lawyer wants to admit into evidence Carol's earlier statement to the investigator. The prosecutor objects on hearsay grounds. How should the judge rule? What is the Issue, rule, analysis, and conclusion?