Hearsay exemption for admissions: a party's admission by express adoption of another person's statement and a party's admission by tacit adoption of another person's statement

Cf. United States v. Neely, 980 F.2d 1074, 1082-1083 (7th Cir. 1992) (upholding trial court's exclusion of defendant's reply letter [which he wrote more than two weeks after he received Lake's letter] as a state-of-mind....To fall within the hearsay exception provided by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) or a comparable State rule for person's present internal states, it must be shown that declarant had no chance to reflect, fabricate, or misrepresent his thoughts.

United States v. Cox, 633 F.2d 871, 874 (9th Cir. 1980) (mockup of bomb admitted for "demonstrative purposes only").A chart, diagram, visual aid, or the like is not evidence.

City of Tuscaloosa v. Harcros Chemicals, Inc., 158 F.3d 548, 557-558 (11th Cir. 1998) (action alleging antitrust violations and fraud; district court granted summary judgment for defendant; plaintiff asserted that the district court erroneously excluded corporate agent's admissions; judgment reversed on...A statement by an agent or an employee can be imputed to the principal or the employer (respectively) and be treated as a vicarious admission (that, like other admissions, is exempt from the prohibition against hearsay) only if the statement was made during the agency or employment relationship.