This is a cross reference. Click here to make the jump.

United States v. Shryock, 342 F.3d 948, 982 (9th Cir. 2003) (upholding trial court's exclusion of Hernandez's statement under the residual hearsay exception because it did not meet the requirements of Rule 807 as "the....A statement is admissible under the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 807 or a comparable State rule only if circumstantial evidence shows that the affected statement is as trustworthy as the statements that are made admissible by the hearsay exceptions created by Federal Rules of Evidence 803 and 804 or by comparable State rules.

Fed. R. Evid. 404(a)(3).Under some circumstances untruthfulness is admissible to impeach a witness.

Marra v. Philadelphia Housing Authority, 497 F.3d 286, 298-299 (3d Cir. 2007) (holding, in plaintiff supervisors' unlawful retaliation action against defendant state agency, that the trial court properly admitted plaintiff's testimony....A statement is imputed to a principal or to an employer and is treated as the principal's or employer's vicarious admission (which, like other admissions is exempt from the hearsay rule) if the principal or employer is a party, the statement is offered against the principal or party, the statement is a statement by the party's agent or employee about a matter within the scope of the agent's agency or the employee's employment, and the statement is made during the principal-agent or employer-employee relationship.