Federal Rule of Evidence 804 or a comparable State rule creates several exceptions to the prohibition against the admission of hearsay evidence.

Malek v. Federal Insurance Co., 994 F.2d 49, 53 (2d Cir. 1993) (holding, in plaintiff insureds' action against defendant insurers for recovery of proceeds of a fire insurance policy, that the trial court erroneously....Document must have been prepared in the normal course of business.

Horton v. Allen, 370 F.3d 75, 84 (1st Cir. 2004) (holding, in petitioner inmate's habeas corpus petition, that the trial court properly admitted the testimony of victim Garcia about statements made on the day....The right of confrontation guaranteed by the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution puts no constraints on the admissibility of nontestimonial hearsay statements; the federal constitutional right of confrontation does not apply to such statements.

Trammel v. United States, 445 U.S. 40, pin? (1980) (Court rejects the former rule that accused is holder of the privilege and holds that testifying spouse is the holder; Court justifies the new rule by criticizing as sexist the alleged superannuated predicate of the former...In a criminal trial the spouse of the defendant has a privilege not to testify at the trial of the defendant or the defendant has a privilege to prevent a spouse from testifying. This privilege is called, variously, the marital privilege, the marital testimony privilege, or the adverse spousal testimony privilege.