With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". 746(2) (James H. Chadbourn rev., 1970)) (emphasis in original); see also 2 McCormick on Evidence § 283 (Kenneth S. Broun, 6th ed. 2009). The requirement that the witness acknowledge the accuracy of the recorded recollection at trial is consistent with the belief that this exception is justified because the witness, who is subject to cross-examination, “incorporates into [his] testimony by reference the record of past recollection.” Montano, 846 So.2d at 681 (citing Garrett v. etective’s testimony was not sufficient foundation to admit co-defendant’s taped statement and thus, it was inadmissible as past recollection recorded where, despite his likely “convenient amnesia,” co-defendant could not testify either that the statement was his or that it was accurate); Montano, 846 So.2d at 681 (<HOLDING>). Here, Stephens not only failed to attest to

A: holding a sworn taped statement given to a deputy was improperly admitted because the witness herself did not acknowledge its accuracy at trial or that she was truthful at the time she made it
B: holding that admission of one defendants deposition was proper where she was present at the deposition even though she was represented at the time by the same counsel as her codefendants
C: holding plaintiff failed to demonstrate disparate treatment because she failed to show she was similarly situated to coworker to whom she compared herself
D: holding that the challenged evidence the government introduced in rebuttal was substantive evidence and not  relevant for impeachment purposes because it was not offered to show that the witness was not a credible person but to show that she was not at the defendants home during the relevant time making her testimony that she did not see any drugrelated activity while at the defendants home irrelevant
A.