Barrett was arrested on suspicion of stealing some rare
stamps.
At trial, Barrett attempted to introduce the testimony of
Melvin.
Melvin wanted to testify that a guy named Tilly told him
that he had robbed the stamps and that Barrett was not involved.
Barrett argued that the testimony was not hearsay
under FRE 804(b)(3) because Tilly was making incriminating comments
against his own self-interest.
The prosecution argued that Tilly's specific statement
about Barrett's involvement was not against his self-interest, so it was
not admissible under the FRE 804(b)(3) exception.
By the time of the trial, Tilly was dead and could not be
called to testify.
The Trial Judge did not allow the testimony to be
admitted.
The Trial Judge found that only statements that are
prejudicial to the declarant are admissible under FRE 804(b)(3).
The Trial Court found Barrett guilty. He appealed.
The Appellate Court reversed and remanded for a new trial.
The Appellate Court found that FRE 804(b)(3) asks
whether:
The offered remarks come within the hearsay
exception as a statement against interest because they imply that
Tilley had knowledge of, and was therefore involved in, a crime.
If so, is there sufficient corroboration to clearly
indicate trustworthiness?
The Appellate Court found that the remark did constitute
a statement against interest and remanded to the Trial Court to
determine if there is sufficient corroboration.
By saying that he knew Barrett was not involved, Tilley
was incriminating himself by showing knowledge of who committed the
crime.
The basic rule here is that a remark standing alone, may
not be against interest, but the statement as a whole can be against
interest.
Here, the exculpatory part concerning Barrett's
non-involvement coupled with Tilley's inside information makes the
statement against the interest of the declarant.
