The hearsay rule, hearsay exemptions, and hearsay exceptions

United States v. Cisneros-Gutierrez, 517 F.3d 751, 757-758 (5th Cir. 2008) (upholding trial court's admission of the redacted factual resume of defendant's brother which stated that defendant delivered the methamphetamine as a prior....A prior statement is exempt from the federal hearsay rule and is admissible to prove the truth of the matter asserted by the declarant with the prior statement if the prior statement was made under oath in another proceeding and if the prior statement is inconsistent with the declararant's testimony or with the admitted hearsay statement of the declarant.

Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(E) ("A statement is not hearsay if-- ... (2) Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is ... (E) a statement by a coconspirator of a party during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.").A statement by a co-conspirator of a party is not barred by the hearsay rule from being admitted against the party if the statement was made by the co-conspirator during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.

Fed. R. Evid. 104(b) advisory committee's note ("In some situations, the relevancy of an item of evidence, in the large sense, depends upon the existence of a particular preliminary fact. Thus when a spoken statement is relied upon to prove notice to X, it is without probative value unless X heard it. Or if a letter purporting to be from Y...The relevance of proffered evidence may depend on a "condition." A "condition" is some fact other than the fact that the proffered evidence is meant to establish.