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.

United States v. Reed, 227 F.3d 763, 737 (7th Cir. 2000) (upholding trial court's ruling to admit Simmons's prior testimony because he was unavailable, as Federal Rule of Evidence 804(a)(1) considers a declarant as....The hearsay exceptions created by Federal Rule of Evidence 804 or a comparable State rule apply only if the declarant (the maker of the statement) is unavailable to testify at the trial or proceedings at which the declarant's statement is offered.

Fed. R. Evid. 609(a)(1) ("(a) General rule. For the purpose of attacking the character for truthfulness of a witness, (1) evidence that a witness other than an accused has been....If a conviction is offered to impeach a witness and the conviction is not for a crime that involves dishonesty or false statement, the conviction of the witness may be used to impeach the witness if the crime for which the witness was convicted is punishable by death or imprisonment for more than a year, if the crime the witness committed is probative of the truthfulness of the witness, and if the opponent fails to show that the risk of prejudice or other harm mentioned in Federal Rule of Evidence 403 outweighs the probative value of the conviction; but if the witness to be impeached is a criminal defendant, the prosecution bears the burden of showing that the probative value of the conviction outweighs the risk of prejudice to the defendant.

United States v. Naylor, 705 F.2d 110, 111-112 (4th Cir. 1983) (upholding trial court's admission of evidence of accused's 1980 conviction for attempted theft of a motor vehicle because it constituted a prior similar act which proved his knowledge that the vehicle was stolen, as an essential element of...A person's other crimes, wrongs, or acts are not barred by the character rule either if they are not offered to show that person's propensity or if they are not offered to show that that person engaged in conduct on a particular occasion because of his or her propensity to engage in that sort of conduct.