15. This evidence should be

A is correct. The defendant's wife's testimony at the prior hearing, if relevant to the bankruptcy fraud case, is admissible under the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule. Testimony given as a witness at another hearing of the same or a different proceeding, if the party against whom the testimony is now offered had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination, is admissible if the declarant is unavailable. In this case, the wife is now deceased and unavailable to testify. Although the testimony was in a separate proceeding, the defendant had the opportunity and motive to cross-examine his wife about the testimony, and the mere fact that he didn't use all he could have on cross-examination does not make the testimony inadmissible. Therefore, it is admissible under the former testimony exception.

B is incorrect. The standard for admission of hearsay is not that it was a statement by a person identified with a party. There is no evidence that the former testimony would be an admission or that the wife's testimony could be imputed to the husband.

C is incorrect. The statements are admissible under the former testimony exception to the hearsay rule.

D is incorrect. The defendant does not have the right to prevent the use of his spouse's testimony against him, and even if he did, the confidentiality of the statements had already been breached when the wife first testified.