Miscellaneous hearsay exceptions recognized by Federal Rule of Evidence 803 or a comparable State rule

Johnson v. Hugo's Skateway, 974 F.2d 1408, 1413 (4th Cir. 1992) (ordering new trial in racial harassment and intimidation action in which the trial court excluded evidence of the consent order since it proved the truth of....Although settlement negotiations and offers are inadmissible (i) to show the validity or invalidity of a claim when validity is in dispute, (ii) to show the amount of damages when the amount is in dispute, or (iii) to impeach by showing a prior inconsistent statement or specific contradiction, such settlement offers and negotiations are admissible if they are used to impeach a witness by showing the bias or interest of the witness.

United States v. Geiger, 263 F.3d 1034, 1038-1039 (9th Cir. 2001) (upholding trial court's admission of arresting officer's prior testimony at the federal suppression hearing because "[u]nder Rule 804(b)(1), prior testimony....The hearsay exception for prior testimony applies in a criminal case only if the if the party against whom the testimony is now offered had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony in the prior proceeding by direct, cross, or redirect examination. The exception applies in a civil action or proceeding only if the party against whom the testimony is now offered or a predecessor in interest had an opportunity and similar motive in the prior proceeding to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.

Cf. United States v. Snow, 517 F.2d 441, 443-444 (9th Cir. 1975) (upholding trial court's admission of a tag bearing defendant's name on a brief case in which the weapon was found because the taped name tag was not....Not every human utterance is capable of amounting to hearsay. Only an utterance that contains an assertion can amount to a "statement" for purposes of Federal Rule of Evidence 801(a) or hearsay under Federal Rule of Evidence 801(c).