Evidence that would be prohibited character evidence if offered to show a person's conduct is not barred by the character evidence rule if it is offered to show some other matter such as another person's belief.

United States v. Centracchio, 265 F.3d 518, 525-526 (7th Cir. 2001) (reversing trial court's exclusion into evidence the guilty plea allocution of an unindicted co-conspirator [Sapoznik] as a statement against....A statement qualifies as a statement against interest for purposes of the hearsay exception for statements against interest only if the statement, at the time the declarant made it, was so contrary to the declarant's interest that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made if the declarant had believed the statement to be untrue.

United States v. Lindstrom, 698 F.2d 1154, pin? (11th Cir. 1983).A nonconstitutional privilege sometimes must yield to a criminal defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront and cross-examine an adverse witness in a criminal trial. A nonconstitutional privilege privilege may have to yield to a criminal defendant's Confrontation Right when the privilege shields evidence or facts (particularly evidence or facts showing bias) that have significant probative value on the credibility of an adverse witness in a criminal trial who testifies about material facts in issue.

United States v. Alexander, 331 F.3d 116, 121-123 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (upholding trial court's admission of defendant girlfriend's 911 call as an excited utterance because even though "the intervening call might suggest that [the....A statement falls within the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2) or a comparable State rule for excited utterances, only if the declarant (the maker of the statement) was under the stress of the startling event or condition when he or she made the statement that relates to that startling event or condition.