Evaluation, weight, and sufficiency of evidence

United States v. Ochoa, 229 F.3d 631, 637-638 (7th Cir. 2000) (upholding trial court's admission of co-conspirator McLaughlin's out-of-court statements because the co-conspirator was unavailable for purposes of the....For purposes of the hearsay exceptions created by Federal Rule of Evidence 804 or a comparable State rule a declarant is "unavailable" within the meaning of Rule 804(a) or a comparable State rule if the declarant (1) is exempted by ruling of the court on the ground of privilege from testifying concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement; or (2) persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement despite an order of the court to do so; or (3) testifies to a lack of memory of the subject matter of the declarant's statement; or (4) is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; or (5) is absent from the hearing and the proponent of a statement has been unable to procure the declarant's attendance (or in the case of a hearsay exception under subdivision (b)(2), (3), or (4) of Rule 804(b) or a comparable State rule, the declarant's attendance or testimony) by process or other reasonable means; but a declarant is not "unavailable" if such exemption, refusal, claim of lack of memory, inability, or absence is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of a statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying.

United States v. Zenni, 492 F. Supp. 464, 468-469 (E.D. Ky. 1980) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of implied assertions by certain telephone callers because "the utterances of the betters telephoning in their....If some human utterance has legal significance under applicable substantive law and the utterance is offered to establish that a verbal act having such legal significance has taken place, the utterance is not hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c) or a "statement" for purposes of Federal Rule of Evidence 801(a)(2) even if the utterance also contains an assertion or appears to contain an an assertion.

United States v. Pulido-Jacobo, 377 F.3d 1124, 1132 (10th Cir. 2004) (upholding trial court's admission of the speaker receipt as an adoptive admission under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(d)(2)(B) because "the government....An adoptive admission is exempt from the prohibition against hearsay evidence.