A statement that exposes a declarant (other than the defendant) to criminal liability is admissible under the hearsay exception for statements against interest to exculpate a criminal defendant only if corroborating circumstances show that the statement is trustworthy.

Fed. R. Evid. 408 ("(a) Prohibited Uses.--Evidence of the following is not admissible on behalf of any party, when offered to prove liability for, invalidity of, or amount of a claim that was disputed as to validity or amount, or to impeach through a prior inconsistent statement or contradiction: (1) furnishing or offering or promising...Settlement offers and statements made during settlement negotiations are inadmissible if such offers and statements are offered to (i) show the validity or invalidity of a claim when the validity of the claim is in dispute, (ii) show the amount of damages when the amount of the claim is in dispute, or (iii) to impeach a witness by showing a prior inconsistent statement or specific contradiction.

United States v. McCann, 366 F.3d 46, 54 (1st Cir. 2004) (upholding trial court's admission of evidence of the $200,000 loan and the three bank checks where such evidence was the direct proof of one of two elements of the charged mail-fraud offense).Evidence of a criminal or wrongful act apart from the act that at issue at trial Is not barred by the prohibition against circumstantial use of character if intent, knowledge, mistake, or accident is a legally-material factual issue, the opposing party suggests the non-existence of knowledge or urges mistake or accident as a defense, and evidence of another crime, wrong, or act is offered to prove the knowledge or the absence of mistake or accident by a criminal defendant or other person.

Leland v. Oregon, 343 U.S. 790, pin? (1952).The law is disordered on the question of when a presumption in a criminal trial violates the constitutionally-mandated standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt.