Something to think about

Rule 804 Hearsay Exceptions; Declarant Unavailable
(a) Definition of unavailability. "Unavailability as a witness" includes situations in which the declarant–
(1) is exempted by ruling of the court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement; or
(2) persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of thedeclarant's statement despite an order of the court to do so; or
(3) has a lack of memory of the subject matter of the declarant's statement; or
(4) is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; or
(5) is absent from the hearing and the proponent of a statement has been unable to procure the declarant's attendance (or in the case of a hearsay exception under subdivision (b)(2), (3), or (4), the declarant's attendance or testimony) by process or other reasonable means, and in a criminal case, due diligence is shown.
A declarant is not unavailable as a witness if exemption, refusal, claim of lack of memory, inability, or absence is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of a statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying.
(b) Hearsay exceptions. The following are not excluded by the hearsay rule if the declarant is unavailable as a witness:
(1) Former testimony. Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.
(2) Statement under belief of impending death. In a prosecution for homicide or in a civil action or proceeding, a statement made by a declarant while believing that the declarant's death was imminent, concerning the cause or circumstances of what the declarant believed to be impending death.
(3) Statement against interest. A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the
Michigan Rules of Evidence Last Updated 6/23/2006
declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.
(4) Statement of personal or family history. (A) A statement concerning the declarant's own birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, legitimacy, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history, even though declarant had no means of acquiring personal knowledge of the matter stated; or (B) a statement concerning the foregoing matters, and death also, of another person, if the declarant was related to the other by blood, adoption, or marriage or was so intimately associated with the other's family as to be likely to have accurate information concerning the matter declared.
(5) Deposition Testimony. Testimony given as a witness in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in interest, had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.
For purposes of this subsection only, "unavailability of a witness" also includes situations in which:
(A) The witness is at a greater distance than 100 miles from the place of trial or hearing, or is out of the United States, unless it appears that the absence of the witness was procured by the party offering the deposition; or
(B) On motion and notice, such exceptional circumstances exist as to make it desirable, in the interests of justice, and with due regard to the importance of presenting the testimony of witnesses orally in open court, to allow the deposition to be used.

(6) Statement by declarant made unavailable by opponent. A statement offered against a party that has engaged in or encouraged wrongdoing that was intended to, and did, procure the unavailability of the declarant as a witness.
(7) Other Exceptions. A statement not specifically covered by any of the foregoing exceptions but having equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, if the court determines that (A) the statement is offered as evidence of a material fact, (B) the statement is more probative on the point for which it is offered than any other evidence that the proponent can procure through reasonable efforts, and (C) the general purposes of these rules and the interests of justice will best be served by admission of the statement into evidence. However, a statement may not be admitted under this exception unless the proponent of the statement makes known to the adverse party, sufficiently in advance of the trial or hearing to provide the adverse party with a fair opportunity to prepare to meet it, the proponent's intention to offer the statement and the particulars of it, including the name and address of the declarant.
Monica never responded whether she had knowledge of the abuse during the two period after the trial. Once new video evidence was introduced then Monica remain mute on the subject. Monica had lied through out her deposition and trial about her knowledge about the two incident but once we had the children on film then she remained mute. Notice Reed's response to your motion. He even lied and said the video were the same that we tried to introduce during the trial



Michigan Rules of Evidence Last Updated 6/23/2006
MRE 804 is identical with Rule 804 of the Federal Rules of Evidence except:
(1) MRE 804(a)(3) is identical with Federal Rule 804(a)(3) except that the word "has" is substituted for the phrase "testifies to."
(2) MRE 804(a)(5) is identical with Federal Rule 804(a)(5) except for the addition of the phrase: "and in a criminal case, due diligence is shown."
(3) MRE 804(b)(3) is identical with Federal Rule 804(b)(3) except that the phrase "reasonable person" is substituted for the phrase "reasonable man."
(4) The Michigan Rules of Evidence contain no catch-all hearsay exception such as found in Federal Rule 804(b)(5).
(5) Subrule (b)(5) defines several hearsay exceptions for deposition testimony. The new subrule combines a part of former subrule (b)(1) with parts of former MCR 2.308(A), which has been amended concurrently.
Note to amendment of January 19, 1996:
The 1996 adoption of MRE 804(b)(6) incorporated into the Michigan Rules of Evidence the residual or "catch-all" exceptions to the hearsay rule that are part of the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Note to amendment of May 21, 2001:
MRE 804(b)(6) was added and is almost identical to FRE 804(b)(6), which was added to the federal rules effective December 1, 1997. The new subrule creates a hearsay exception for prior statements by a witness who has become unavailable due to wrongful acts committed or encouraged by the party against whom the statement is to be introduced.