Evidence that helps tell a factual story in an intelligible way or that puts the evidence or the issues in the case in a meaningful or intelligible context is "relevant."

United States v. Reyes, 362 F.3d 536, 540 (8th Cir. 2004) (upholding trial court's admission of a co-conspirator's statements as recounted by an agent which did not violate defendant's Confrontation Clause rights....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.

United States v. Mercado Irizarry, 404 F.3d 497, 500 (1st Cir. 2005) (upholding trial court's admission of officer's testimony about co-defendant's prior consistent statement about the murder because "[co-defendant's] consistent....A prior statement of a witness is exempt from the prohibition against hearsay evidence if the prior statement is consistent with the witness' testimony at the trial or hearing at which the prior statement is offered, the prior statement is offered to rebut a express or implied charge of recent fabrication or motive, and the witness who made the prior statement testifies and is subject to cross-examination at the trial or hearing at which the prior statement is offered.

Fed. R. Evid. 801(d)(2)(A) ("A statement is not hearsay if-- ... (2)Admission by party-opponent. The statement is offered against a party and is (A) the party's own statement, in either an individual or a representative capacity").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.