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.

Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, pin? (1973).The Due Process and Compulsory Process guarantees give a defendant in a federal or state criminal trial the constitutional right, not only to compel the attendance of defense witnesses, but also to introduce trustworthy hearsay evidence that is critical or important to the defendant's defense.

United States v. Joy, 192 F.3d 761, 766 (7th Cir. 1999) (upholding trial court's admission of the 911 recording and transcripts of the recording as excited utterances because all three elements were satisfied: "(1)....Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for an utterance that relates to a startling event or condition and is made while the declarant -- the maker of the statement -- is excited as a result of the starling event or condition.

Cf. United States v. Opager, 589 F.2d 799, 801 (5th Cir. 1979) (conviction for knowingly and intentionally possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute and knowingly and intentionally distributing cocaine; on appeal court agreed with accused that trial court erred in rejecting certain business...In the absence of a conviction against a witness, it is generally impermissible to impeach the witness with extrinisic evidence of an act of the witness if the sole purpose of offering the other is to attack the truthfulness of the witness. Evidence is of an act is "extrinsic" if evidence of the impeaching act can be had only by having another witness give evidence of the impeaching act.