George is suing Martha in a personal injury case, claiming that Martha's stairs were poorly maintained and therefore they crumbled when George stepped on them. One of George's witnesses is Frank, Martha's brother. During pre-trial discovery, Martha deposed Frank, and Frank said during the deposition: "About a week before George hurt himself, I saw that Martha's steps were rotting away. I told her to either get them fixed or to rope them off so that people wouldn't use them." George calls Frank at trial, but Frank refuses to testify against his sister, claiming "sibling privilege." The trial judge informs Frank that there is no such thing as sibling privilege and that if he does not testify, he will be held in contempt. Frank still refuses to testify and is held in contempt and thrown in jail. George now seeks to admit Frank's statement during his deposition. Martha objects to the statement. How should the court rule? Group of answer choices The statement is inadmissible because the statement was not contrary to Frank's interest at the time he made it. The statement is inadmissible because Frank is not unavailable, since there is no such thing as "sibling privilege." The statement is partially admissibleit can be used to prove the steps were rotting away, but the statement that Frank told Martha to get them fixed or rope them off is double hearsay and inadmissible. The statement is admissible to prove the steps were rotting away and to prove Martha had notice they we