The Barneswalker sure as hell didn't bring it up in his motion asserting April's 5th amendment rights for her.
Actually, he did. He did it very poorly. After nearly a page of going on about
Miranda, he finally made the argument about confrontation, without even mentioning the words "hearsay" or citing the Sixth Amendment. I didn't even notice he'd actually raised the issue until a readthrough.
It's astoundingly poor drafting and tbh I have no clue how the Miranda issue and the hearsay issue are even connected. Considering it's the strongest part of the argument, it's bizarre to have spent most of the argument (and every actual citation to law) on the irrelevant
Miranda issue and then citing hearsay as an afterthought, not even mentioning "hearsay" by name, and citing nothing in support of it.
(I mean I
think it's a fruit of the poisonous tree argument, but it's not coherently made. The hearsay argument is a no-brainer, though. It's a statement made outside of court offered for the truth of the matter asserted, i.e. that whatever April said tends to prove Nick guilty.)
I predicted this argument might actually succeed, the night before the hearing, but it took me until then even to NOTICE that it had been made, because the drafting is so obtuse and retarded.
You lead with your strong point, and this is why.