Although sparse United States Supreme Court dicta and precedent suggest that nonconstitutional privilege rules may have to yield to a criminal defendant's federal constitutional rights, except for the specific and rare circumstances in which the Court has said or suggested that must happen, it is unknown when such privilege rules must yield to a criminal defendant's constitutional rights such as the right to compulsory process and the broader federal constitutional right to present a defense in a criminal trial.

United States v. Goodchild, 25 F.3d 55, 61-62 (1st Cir. 1994) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of the telephone statement memos as business records because "[the statement memos met] the strictures of the....The hearsay exception for "business records" created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(6) or a comparable State rule applies only (i) the record is based on the personal knowledge of an entrant with a business duty to record the event or other such matter or (ii) if the record of the event is based on the personal knowledge of a person who had a business duty to transmit the information about the event or other matter to the person or persons who made the record and had a business duty to do so. A person has a "business duty" if the person has a duty to an organization by reason of law, contract, employment relationship, or other such matter to record or report an event, condition, opinion, or other matter to which the business records exception to the hearsay rule may apply.

United States v. Delaplane, 778 F.2d 570, 574 (10th Cir. 1985) (upholding trial court's ruling which allowed the introduction of a wiretapped telephone conversation [between an unidentified male and an unidentified female....To qualify as a statement of present sense impression for purposes of the hearsay exception by that name, the statement made by the declarant (the maker of the statement) must describe or explain an event or condition.

United States v. Mandycz, 447 F.3d 951, 966 (6th Cir. 2006) (upholding trial court's admission of the Soviet interrogation records as ancient documents because defendant failed to prove that the Soviet interrogation....Federal Rule of Evidence 803(16) and comparable State rules create a hearsay exception for statements in an authenticated document that is more than a certain number of years old, typically twenty years.