If a statement is made by a party and the statement is offered against the party that made the statement, the federal law of evidence characterizes such a statement as non-hearsay and exempts it from the hearsay prohibition found in Federal Rule of Evidence 802 or a comparable State rule even though the exempted statement otherwise satisfies the definition of hearsay given in Rule 801(c) or a comparable State rule.

Fed. R. Evid. 403 ("Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed ... by considerations of ... needless presentation of cumulative evidence.").The trial court may use Federal Rule of Evidence 403 to exclude relevant evidence if the trial court finds that the probative value of the evidence is substantially outweighed by needless presentation of cumulative evidence.

Santa Barbara Capital Mgmt. v. Neilson (In re Slatkin), 525 F.3d 805, 812-813 (9th Cir. 2008) (holding, in plaintiff trustee's adversary proceeding against defendant investors, that the bankruptcy court properly admitted the debtor's plea agreement....The hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 807 or a parallel State rule applies only if admission of the affected statement in evidence serves the interests of justice and the general purposes of the law of evidence.

Cf. Echo Acceptance Corp. v. Household Retail Services, Inc., 267 F.3d 1068, 1087-1088 (10th Cir. 2001) (upholding trial court's ruling which sustained plaintiff's hearsay objection against defendant's proffer of the exhibits as verbal acts because "none of the....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.