Also known as:Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3) · Rule 804(b)(3) · FRE 804(b)(3) statement against interest · statement against interest · hearsay exception 804(b)(3)
Written by attorneys · grounded in primary & secondary sources — see below
A hearsay exception that admits an unavailable declarant's statement when the statement was so contrary to the declarant's pecuniary, proprietary, or penal interest that a reasonable person would not have made it unless believing it true. Only discrete remarks that are genuinely self-inculpatory qualify. Collateral statements that merely implicate another person remain inadmissible even if embedded in an overall inculpatory narrative.
Sources & Authorities
How it applies
Common Examples
2
Partial Self-Incrimination in Narrative
Felix Franco told a coworker that he personally falsified inspection logs to conceal safety violations at the plant. He also added that his supervisor had directed the falsifications. When Felix later became unavailable, the coworker sought to recount both parts of the conversation at trial. The court admitted only Felix's admission that he falsified the logs because that portion exposed him to liability. The remark about the supervisor's direction did not expose Felix to additional liability and was excluded.
Unavailability Through Detention Abroad
Finn Fletcher wrote in a ship's log that he deliberately ignored storm warnings to maintain the schedule. Finn was later detained in a foreign country on unrelated charges and could not be brought to court despite reasonable efforts. At trial the log entry was offered to show Finn's conduct exposed the vessel to damage. The court admitted the entry because Finn's detention rendered him unavailable and the log exposed him to civil liability.
Select any source to read its text and confirm it supports the definition.
Cases
Casebooks
United States v. McGee189 F.3d 626 (7th Cir. 1999)
Common questions
Frequently Asked
4
When is a declarant unavailable for purposes of FRE 804(b)(3)?+
A declarant is unavailable if the proponent cannot procure attendance by process or other reasonable means, including when the declarant is dead, asserts a privilege, or is absent despite reasonable efforts. Wrongful procurement of the absence by the proponent defeats unavailability.
Supporting sources
Does FRE 804(b)(3) admit statements that shift blame to another person?+
No. Only the discrete portions that are genuinely self-inculpatory as to the declarant are admissible. Remarks that merely implicate another person or minimize the declarant's role are not self-inculpatory and remain inadmissible even if contained in the same narrative.
Supporting sources
Does the corroboration requirement in FRE 804(b)(3)(B) apply in civil cases?+
No. The corroboration requirement applies only in criminal cases. In civil actions the statement need only satisfy the reasonable-person test in subdivision (A).
Supporting sources
What makes a statement sufficiently against penal interest?+
The statement must expose the declarant to criminal liability in a manner that a reasonable person would recognize as carrying serious risk of prosecution. Admissions of illegal conduct that could result in fines or imprisonment satisfy the test when made under circumstances showing the declarant appreciated the exposure.
Supporting sources
512 U.S. 594 (1994)Evidence
…are true." Advisory Committee's Notes on Fed.RuleEvid. 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…
EvidenceHearsay and circumstances of its admissibility · Statements that are not hearsayNEXTGENFoundational