[wtc911]

Of course she would be allowed to speak on the stand about the conversation. Her statements of what Martin said fall under the legal definition of hearsay but there are numerous exceptions to exclusion in 803. This may be one of them.

But, without third party corroboration anything she deduces from the sounds she heard, such as her statement that it sounded like martin got pushed down, would not be allowed or would be challenged by the defense along the lines of; "couldn't the sound also be martin punching zimmerman?

That is what I mean by it being without value.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Of course she would be allowed to speak on the stand about the conversation. Her statements of what Martin said fall under the legal definition of hearsay but there are numerous exceptions to exclusion in 803. This may be one of them.

The GF describing what Martin said to her on the phone, or what she heard on the phone, is not hearsay and I defy you to prove, with authoritative cites, that it is.

She may testify to both what Martin said, as well as what other voices picked up by the telephone's mic. She may legally say, this was Martin's voice. This was not Martin's voice. She can also describe the change in tone she heard. She may not speculate as to the cause of the change in tone.