was “drowsy” and “in a lot of distress” on the day the statement was made. Furthermore, a nurse in the room heard her say “Donna” rather than “Daddy.” Because this was an out-of-court statement and Quattura was deemed incompetent to testify, cross-examination was impossible. Given the age and mental state of Quattura and the conflicting versions of what she said, we find unwarranted the state’s rebanee on this statement, and virtually this statement alone, to support the petitioner’s conviction. While such evidence could certainly be used to add to the prosecution’s case, a statement made under circumstances such as those in this case by an “incompetent” declarant simply does not constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Cf. United States v. Orrico, 599 F.2d 113 (6th Cir.1979) (<HOLDING>). There was circumstantial evidence that
holding past recollection recorded and prior inconsistent statement insufficient standing alone to establish central element of alleged offense holding that a police officers notes were relevant as prior and possibly inconsistent statements made and recorded by the witness holding audiotape recordings were inadmissible as past recollection recorded where witnesses did not testify that the recordings accurately reflected their memories of events when made holding that where witness was unable or unwilling to attest to the accuracy of the taped conversation the state could not introduce the same as a past recollection recorded holding that threats standing alone generally do not constitute past persecution