Also known as: FRE 804(b)(3) · Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3) · statement against interest
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A hearsay exception that admits an unavailable declarant's statement when a reasonable person in the declarant's position would have made the statement only if believing it true because the statement was so contrary to the declarant's proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability.
Fiona Foster told a colleague that she had falsified inventory records to meet quarterly targets and that her supervisor had directed the changes. When Fiona later became unavailable, the colleague's testimony about the supervisor's direction was excluded even though the overall conversation occurred. Only Fiona's own admission of falsifying records qualified for admission because that discrete remark alone exposed her to liability.
Frederick Ferguson admitted to a coworker that he had diverted company funds to cover personal expenses and that the diversion had occurred over several months. Frederick later invoked his Fifth Amendment privilege and became unavailable. The coworker's testimony recounting the entire admission was admitted because each component of the statement exposed Frederick to civil and criminal liability.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
The statement must be so contrary to the declarant's proprietary or pecuniary interest or expose the declarant to such great civil or criminal liability that a reasonable person would make it only if believing it true. Each discrete remark must be examined separately for self-inculpatory effect.
Supporting sources
No. The corroboration requirement applies only when a statement against penal interest is offered in a criminal case to exculpate the accused. Civil cases require only unavailability and satisfaction of the reasonable-person test.
Supporting sources
Unavailability occurs when the declarant is dead, invokes a privilege, refuses to testify despite a court order, testifies to a lack of memory, or is absent despite reasonable efforts to procure attendance, provided the proponent did not wrongfully cause the absence.
Supporting sources
Yes. Only those discrete remarks that are genuinely self-inculpatory as to the declarant qualify. Remarks that merely shift blame to another person or lack self-inculpatory force remain inadmissible even if embedded in an otherwise qualifying statement.
Supporting sources
…are true." Advisory Committee's Notes on Fed. Rule Evid. 804, 28 U. S. C. App., p. 789. Of course, the declarant may make his statement against interest (such as "I shot the bank teller") together with collateral but related declarations (such as "John Doe drove the getaway car"). The admissibility of those collateral statements under Rule…