The evidence for a condition upon which the relevance of evidence depends must be sufficient to support a finding by the trier of fact that the condition exists.

United States v. Westmoreland, 312 F.3d 302, 627-628 (7th Cir. 2002) (upholding trial court's admission of co-defendant Abeln's statements qualified as statements against interest because the (a) "statements [such as, (1)....Federal Rule of Evidence of Evidence 804(b)(3) or a comparable State rule creates a hearsay exception for a statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement.

Perez v. Irwin, 963 F.2d 499, 500, 502 (2d Cir. 1992) (use of jury instruction suggesting jurors' need for "moral certainty" of _doubt_ about guilt to acquit, condemned; "In affirming, we observe that judges' consistent use of the same terminology often is criticized as dull legalese; but in some...Some courts have approved and some courts have criticized jury instructions saying that proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof of guilt to a moral certainty.

Cf. Bemis v. Edwards, 45 F.3d 1369, 1372 (9th Cir. 1995) (upholding trial court's exclusion of neighbor's statements on the 911 tapes because it was hearsay as (1) "[neighbor] was not a testifying witness;" and (2)....A prior inconsistent statement of a witness is admissible, not only to impeach the witness, but also as substantive evidence -- to prove the truth of the matter previously asserted by the witness -- only if the prior consistent statement was made in another proceeding.