A statement can be hearsay only if the statement is "offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted." The purpose for which a statement is offered depends on the purpose of the offeror of the statement. Hence, a statement is offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted if the offeror (normally trial counsel) seeks to use the statement to show that the matter or proposition asserted by the declarant (the maker of the statement) is in fact true.

Cf. United States v. Nguyen, 465 F.3d 1128, 1132 (9th Cir. 2006) (reversing conviction for willful failure to comply with the terms of a release under supervision agreement because the trial court erroneously admitted into....An exception to the hearsay rule applies to the following records of government offices and agencies: (A) public records that set forth the activities of the government office or agency; (B) public records that set forth observations that a government office or agency was required to make and report but this exception does not apply in criminal cases to observations of police officers and other law enforcement personnel; or (C) in civil actions and proceedings and in criminal cases when offered against the government, factual findings resulting from an investigation made pursuant to authority granted by law, unless the sources of information or other circumstances indicate the untrustworthiness of such findings.

United States v. Young, 105 F.3d 1, 9 (1st Cir. 1997) (upholding trial court's admission of the turret tape as a Rule 801(d)(1)(B) prior consistent statement because "[the officer's] statement on the tape was....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.

Cf. United States v. Blaylock, 535 F.3d 922, 928 (8th Cir. 2008) (upholding trial court's ruling which allowed testimony or evidence related to items seized during the search, but destroyed prior to trial because "nothing in....To prove the contents of a thing to which the best evidence requirement applies, the original of the thing must be introduced in evidence.