To fall within the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(1) or a comparable State rule for present sense impressions, a statement by the declarant (the maker of the statement) must be made at the time the declarant perceives the event or condition that the statement describes or explains, or immediately thereafter.

United States v. Reed, 227 F.3d 763, 767 (7th Cir. 2000) (upholding trial court's ruling to admit Simmons's prior testimony because he was unavailable, as Federal Rule of Evidence 804(a)(1) considers a declarant as....For purposes of the hearsay exceptions created by Federal Rule of Evidence 804 or a comparable State rule, a declarant is "unavailable" within the meaning of Rule 804(a) or a comparable State rule if the declarant persists in refusing to testify concerning the subject matter of the declarant's statement despite an order of the court to do so; but a declarant is not "unavailable" if the declarant's refusal is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of a statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying.

United States v. Hassouneh, 199 F.3d 175, 182-183 (4th Cir. 2000) (reversing conviction and remanding for new trial because the trial court, when accused attempted to present relevant evidence that his false statements were made in jest, erred in prohibiting testimony of accused's reputation for jocularity).A criminal defendant may offer a pertinent trait of his or her character circumstantially -- to show the defendant's doing or non-doing of a specific act.

Desert Palace, Inc. v. Costa, 539 U.S. 90, 92 (2003) ("The question before us in this case is whether a plaintiff must present direct evidence of discrimination in order to obtain a mixed-motive instruction under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended by the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (1991...Indirect evidence of motive is admissible and sufficient in federal discrimination cases to show discriminatory motive.