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. Maliszewski, 161 F.3d 992, 1009 (6th Cir. 1998) (upholding trial court's admission of the Mireles testimony [about defendant's repeated statements made by her dead husband] because at the time of the trial,....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(b) or a comparable State rule if the declarant is unable to be present or to testify at the hearing because of death or then existing physical or mental illness or infirmity; but a declarant is not "unavailable" if the declarant's absence is due to the procurement or wrongdoing of the proponent of a statement for the purpose of preventing the witness from attending or testifying.

Levin v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 156,, 338 F.2d 265, pin? (D.C. Cir. 1964) (religiously-motivated pattern of conduct does not constitute habit and is therefore inadmissible character evidence).Religiously-motivated behavior does not constitute "habit" for purposes of Rule 406.

United States v. Jordan, 509 F.3d 191, 202-203 (4th Cir. 2007) (upholding trial court's admission of witness Brown's statements to her friend Adams as statements against penal interest because Brown's statements which....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.