A statement is admissible under the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 807 or a comparable State rule only if circumstantial evidence shows that the affected statement is as trustworthy as the statements that are made admissible by the hearsay exceptions created by Federal Rules of Evidence 803 and 804 or by comparable State rules.

Cf. United States v. Orlandez-Gamboa, 320 F.3d 328, 332 (2d Cir. 2003) (reversing trial court's order which suppressed the statements made by defendant to Colombian prosecutors, because even though the statements were made in the....Federal Rule of Evidence 410 or a comparable State rule bars the use of plea offers, plea negotiations, withdrawn pleas, and pleas of nolo contendere (no contest pleas) against the defendant who engaged in such plea negotiations, entered such a withdrawn plea, or entered such a plea of nolo contendere.

United States v. Jackson, 335 F.3d 170, 177-178 (2d Cir. 2003) (upholding trial court's exclusion of co-conspirator's plea allocution under Rule 804(b)(1) because (1) "[co-conspirator] was unavailable at Jackson's trial....The hearsay exception for prior testimony applies in a criminal case only if the if the party against whom the testimony is now offered had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony in the prior proceeding by direct, cross, or redirect examination. The exception applies in a civil action or proceeding only if the party against whom the testimony is now offered or a predecessor in interest had an opportunity and similar motive in the prior proceeding to develop the testimony by direct, cross, or redirect examination.

United States v. Summers, 414 F.3d 1287, 1294-1295 (10th Cir. 2005) (In the civil context, the import of the 'inference upon inference' rule has largely been eroded. See Salter v. Westra, 904 F.2d 1517, 1525 (11th Cir. 1990);....While permissible, pyramided inferences receive special scrutiny in criminal cases.