Federal Rule of Evidence 803(4) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for a statement made for the purpose of medical diagnosis or treatment.

United States v. Hernandez, 176 F.3d 719, 727 (3d Cir. 1999) (reversing convictions for conspiracy to obstruct interstate commerce by robbery, and receiving or possessing goods stolen from commerce even though....Hearsay evidence is inadmissible.

In re Echostar Communications Corp., 448 F.3d 1294, 1298-1299 (Fed. Cir. 2006) ("The attorney-client privilege protects disclosure of communications between a client and his attorney. United States v. Zolin, 491 U.S. 554, 562, 109 S.Ct. 2619, 105 L.Ed.2d 469 (1989); Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S....There is an attorney-client privilege.

United States v. Russo, 302 F.3d 37, 43 (2d Cir. 2002) (upholding trial court's admission into evidence of out-of-court statements about defendants' Colombo family affiliation because it "did not fall within the....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.