With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Kirschman & Co., 336 So.2d 566, 570 n. 6 (Fla.1976)). Unlike other exceptions to the rule, which obtain their reliability from the circumstances surrounding the making of the out-of-court statement, recorded recollection obtains its reliability based on the credibility of its maker. Id. Therefore, “the law requires the maker to adopt the recorded recollection as his own.” Id. at 682. Accordingly, we have consistently held that out-of-court statements are inadmissible as past recollection recorded unless the proponent lays the foundation for its admission with testimony at trial that the declarant’s statement was recorded when the described events were fresh in his or her mind and attests to the statement’s accuracy. See Hernandez v. State, 31 So.3d 873, 878-80 (Fla. 4th DCA 2010) (<HOLDING>); see also Kimbrough, 846 So.2d at 544 (holding

A: holding that where state witness was unable or unwilling to attest to the accuracy of the taped conversation the state could not introduce it as past recollection recorded the state called the witness for the primary purpose of impeaching her with her taped conversation
B: holding that the trial courts admonition of a witness even though detailed and strongly stated did not coerce the witness because the court did not threaten or badger the witness and the court provided the witness with her own counsel to ensure that the decision was voluntary
C: holding that in order to state a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel based on the failure to call a witness to testify the claimant must allege 1 the identity of the potential witness 2 that the witness was available to testify at trial 3 the substance of the witnesss testimony and 4 an explanation of how the omission of the testimony prejudiced the case
D: holding that the defense may present the entire conversation where it goes to the heart of the  defense
A.