The hearsay exception for contemporaneously-existing states of mind does not encompass the use of a present state of mind to prove a past fact that is remembered or believed.

United States v. Mitchell, 365 F.3d 215, 243 n. 22 (3d Cir. 2004) ("[N]o no one would argue that the commercial popularity of astrology for non-judicial use makes it fit for admission under Rule 702.").Astrology is not a valid science and "expert" astrological evidence does not satisfy the admissibility requirements under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 or comparable State rules; astrology is "junk science."

Cf. United States v. Taubman, 297 F.3d 161, 164-165 (2d Cir. 2002) (upholding trial court's exclusion of defendant's statement to his administrative assistant as a state of mind exception because it failed to show defendant's....To fall within the hearsay exception created by Federal Rule of Evidence 803(3) or a comparable State rule for person's present internal states, a statement by the declarant (the maker of the statement) must be contemporaneous with the mental state or event sought to be proven.

Cf. United States v. Carvalho, 742 F.2d 146, 150-151 (4th Cir. 1984) (reversing convictions for knowingly using false alien registration cards because the trial court erroneously admitted affidavits of defendants' former spouses....If the declarant is unavailable, Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(4) or a comparable State rules recognizes a hearsay exception for (A) A statement concerning the declarant's own birth, adoption, marriage, divorce, legitimacy, relationship by blood, adoption, or marriage, ancestry, or other similar fact of personal or family history, even though declarant had no means of acquiring personal knowledge of the matter stated; or (B) a statement concerning the foregoing matters, and death also, of another person, if the declarant was related to the other by blood, adoption, or marriage or was so intimately associated with the other's family as to be likely to have accurate information concerning the matter declared.