Although an expert who relies on inadmissible hearsay for his or her opinion testimony should not be allowed to disclose such hearsay to the jury when giving his or her opinion testimony, the trial court should allow such hearsay to be revealed to the jury if the trial court determines that the probative value of such hearsay in assisting the jury to evaluate the expert's opinion substantially outweighs the prejudicial effect of disclosing such hearsay to the jury.

Fed. R. Evid. 104(a) advisory committee's note ("In some situations, the relevancy of an item of evidence, in the large sense, depends upon the existence of a particular preliminary fact. Thus when a spoken statement is relied upon to prove notice to X, it is without probative value unless X heard it. Or if a letter purporting to be from Y...A thing or matter is sufficiently authenticated to be admissible in evidence if the authenticating evidence submitted to the trial court is sufficient -- strong enough -- to permit a reasonable jury or reasonable trier of fact to conclude that the proffered thing or matter is authentic, that the proffered thing or matter is what its proponent claims it is.

David v. Pueblo Supermarket of St. Thomas, 740 F.2d 230, 235 (3d Cir. 1984) (holding, in plaintiff pregnant shopper's negligence action against defendant supermarket chain owner/operator for damages, that the trial court properly....A statement falls within the hearsay exception provided by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) only if the statement is related to a startling event or condition.

Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(1) ("Former testimony. Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, or in a deposition taken in compliance with law in the course of the same or another proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered, or, in a civil action or proceeding, a predecessor in...The hearsay exception for prior testimony applies only if testimony was in fact previously given.