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. Allard, 464 F.3d 529, 534 (5th Cir. 2006) ("Allard also argues, with respect to both rebuttal and cross-examination, that the district court admitted evidence relating to the polygraph examination in violation of Rule 403, that is, the probative value of the evidence is 'substantially...Determinations of the relevance of evidence and of claims that evidence is unduly prejudicial are mainly for the trial court and are reviewable only for abuse of discretion.

United States v. Mussacre, 405 F.3d 161, 168-169 (3d Cir. 2005) (upholding trial court's admission of witnesses' testimony about Bruce's inculpatory statements under Federal Rules of Evidence 804(b)(3) because (1)....A statement qualifies as a statement against interest for purposes of the hearsay exception for statements against interest only if the statement, at the time the declarant made it, was so contrary to the declarant's interest that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made if the declarant had believed the statement to be untrue.

MDU Resources Group v. W.R. Grace and Co., 14 F.3d 1274, 1281-1282 (8th Cir. 1994) (preliminary question was when defendant received document from its insurer about risks created by asbestos; document was offered to show notice to defendant; "The second evidentiary ruling MDU challenges is the trial...Evidence of a condition upon which the relevance of evidence depends is sufficient if a reasonable trier (such as a jury) can find by a preponderance of the evidence that the condition exists.