residual hearsay exception of federal rule of evidence you know so it is uniformly held by all the circuits including this one if you lie very rarely and only after much consideration and examination universally regarded as not intended to confer a broad license on trial judges for that reason and consistent with those standards to apply it to trial judge must find that the hearsay it issue has circumstantial guarantees and trustworthiness equivalent to those that underlie recognized exceptions such that such that cross examination of the declarant would be of little utility its therefore when valuating the residual exception look for the kind of circumstantial guarantees that you would see with cross examine former testimony statements against interest statements under a belief of impending death excited utterance is and things of that nature the circumstances surrounding the hearsay declaring in this case the greens decline in this case the circumstances surrounding her statements fell well short of that standard and in that the circumstantial guarantees of trust radios that are the focus of the inquiry don't go for example to the integrity or probity of the declarant now the words you evaluate the circumstances that the person is in cluing circumstances th others around them put them man and for that reason the actions of the mother are relevant to what they declare is actually facing a sense times are there other other factors tha had in this situation although assuming that she didn't assuming that she did correct just to take one step back from that even if you discount the fact for example that her mother threatened her and impersonated her on the telephone trans across is the fact that even if you discount that and you discount the pressure that her mother put on her by attending all her subsequent interviews the mere fact that the statement was made to a parent which is in  talking about how her grades were or where she went for spring break she's dating you know as a parent of teenagers i can suggest i don't presuppose that my children of that age or are necessarily find me the easiest person to talk to formally designated as the beneficiary and the evidence for the record showed that that would have been a policy violation had happened but i think we can read too much into the fact that  the facts right certainly trans america has an incentive only to pay a legitimate claims and not to pay any illegitimate claims of a table where they were not to pay more than once certainly but the question for purposes of this analysis is whether any green and the circumstances that she was in had any reason to believe that trans america would look what investigate closely what she said as the district court suggested which was without basis in the record and in other words i don't courtney greene the declarant and whether or not she had any knowledge of what transamerica would do or how hard they were going to look at this policy that i think is absent from the records that go to that that goes to her motive to tell the truth or nah in other words if she has a belief that what she says is going to be investigated and certainly that would encourage her to be more forthcoming would take away a motive to lie our point was again that motive to lie under those circumstances the question and that when analyzing discordance have said did this person have any reason to fear consequences for me from a false statement or any reason to think that she'd be found out having made a false statement the fact that trans america was motivated to investigate this i do not think is in for many of what courtney greene understood in her position in the trans americas practices were never explained to her  if we look too closely at what ms o'donnell said about ms green's version of events you're relying on the account of a person who's well you rely on account of co have left in this in this opening session i would only point out that of the import what we've i hope highlighted for the court as the errors in district courts analysis i think the most pertinent and salient one comes in its point about analyzing the motive to lie that courtney greene had it as his analysis put it it was that courtney greene had no motive to lie even considering the threat from her mother because the defense that is we have proved that she actually lied and this was wrong we submit your honour's for two independent reasons the first being that since we were not a movement we had no burden of proof or persuasion with regard to the residual exception and second because the question whether ms green actually lied is not relevant to the question whether or not she had a motive to lie which is the focus of the analysis under the residual deception there were two other two points i would talk about in terms of the specific errors of the district court we've covered this briefly but it is clearly an abuse of discretion not to put all of the relevant facts into the analysis concerning the circumstantial guarantees and trustworthiness on that point you can search throughout the district court statement on the record the actual hearing so warrants post trial order and there was no mention of the fact that ms green did not disclose the policy to her mother names with her now we standing that she was having those discussions with my client and therefore consciously kept this information from her mother it was also no consideration of the subject matter of her statement including the fact that her mother had an interest in the policy and without looking at the subject matter i don't think we can reasonably conclude that a statement to a parent just for that reason is sufficiently trustworthy to meet standards the district court conducted a lengthy evidentiary hearing in this manner and heard from last witnesses district court also listen to audio recordings including a one hour long recording of courtney green statements to the local police that was conducted at her her statements about her own well about which she is best placed has has the best personal knowledge as to what her intent and will were with respect to the disposition of the life insurance proceeds and for that  of evidence absolutely and so you don't want to be in the position not utilizing evidence that you think it's probably because because it's alternately the determination  drawing of the certainly and i don't believe this court does need to reach the harmless error standard because i believe the circumstances of this case does fit exactly what the writers of real eight zero seven anticipated what this case statements and also to the other circumstances in which the statements were made and the first and most important element is the statement has the equivalent circumstantial the government's position but that's what the record relied on well let me clarify what the government's position as we're not taking the position that because this was some point a mother daughter relationship and has relied on that's not how we're arguing we're saying that the relationship between this mother understand daughter right so the credibility determination that had to be made by the court was whether this mother would have occasion to fear in this daughter whether this mother was agreed to inherit from her daughter's life people want money too now far be it from a white collar prosecutor to disagree with the premise that people like money but even more basic than the promise that rich people like money is that no parent wants to profit from their child's death i mean i'm not sure you have to go there i would actually prefer to go back to the requirements of the dose and we talked about this statement to the mother it goes to whether or not courtney green had a motive to lie to her mother in making these statements and motive as this court and many other circuits have consistently explained and has that defendant admit is one of the most important circumstances to consider believe those those credibility determinations from the district court that was able to actually hear from these witnesses should be given deference but let me turn to some of the other circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness here green statements were not made under the belief of imminent death but she knew that she had stage four cancer and she knew that the chances of making a recovery from a cancer that has already spread to your spine are very  are the very stark circumstances under which she made the statements at issue here that the defendant's version of events would have required the district court to believe that courtney brain drain chose to spend the last months of her life telling lies to everyone around her lies to her mother lies to the insurance company lies to the bank lies to the police liason federal law enforcement and lies to the twin brother that she loved well it's so ver then to admit the statements of a cleric who was gravely ill and expected to die within two years of making those statements and this court found that those circumstances made his statements likely to be truthful citing a there are two the fact that she did make these statements under the circumstances in which she had stage four terminal cancer so the statements to her mother was made under circumstances and which would have known that she was dying and under those circumstances as opposed to a teenaged daughter wants her parents about you know her boyfriend it's a very different kind of situation and circumstances under which a statement is made so i think the court can rely on that i think  insurance company i will say i think that you have that argument very well and here you said all of the things that i would have said had i had more time but absolutely i think it's quite it's absolutely common sense that no one expects to call the insurance company and just say oh you paid the wrong person and then expect the insurance company to automatically say oh we're sorry well issue you a check for one hundred eighty thousand dollars right away even though we've already paid out that money to apparently the wrong person you call the insurance company to report far because you want them to investigate the fod five of the five and then pay you the money and certainly it goes against courtney green i think any any person any rational adult would have known that and those are the circumstances under which she reports the fraud to the insurance company finally i would just like to briefly touch on the fourth problem the interests of justice here the defendant is in the untenable position of arguing that the truth does not matter and th court should completely disregard the truth of the statements that the government believes and the court absolutely can and should consider the fact that the other evidence in this case overwhelmingly corroborated the truth of the statements that were made so it would have been against the interests of justice to bar the statements now i'll just say that the most damning of that evidence in the government's view is the testimony of the two strong and officiates who were close friends of the defendant one of them wrote a letter in support of the defendant sentencing and arrived to support her at the sentencing and yet they testified that they had never discussed this with courtney greene they had never they didn't know they had been made beneficiaries and whole lot of force one showed up at their door they could think of no legitimate reason why this why they would have been made  the money to the defendant and it also shows the defendant herself to be a liar because she told the insurance company's investigators in trying to justify her actions that courtney crane had been close friends with these women one for eight year wrist and then with the other one for fifteen years and yet these women both testified under oath at trial that they were only acquaintances of courtney grains and they had they had never spoken to her about  also the district court delayed her reporting for sentencing based on some circumstances that the defendant put forward so no she is not currently she's not currently being held plus the court has any further questions the government would simply submit that the federal rules state that they should be construed so as to or to that end of ascertaining the truth and securing a just determination here the district court found after careful consideration of what this testimony and evidence the statements that made that were trustworthy and reliable his decision was neither arbitrary nor irrational it was not an abuse of discretion and should be a briefly to walk through some of the points the government made up to take them i think in reverse order and watch the court house preference it is true as ms hill points out that there was a change of beneficiaries but was fully consistent with the defense that we offered trial which was that the declarant wanted to leave the insurance proceeds to her lifelong best friend did not want her family to know that she made such a generous gift and this was one aspect of implementing that correct it at the last point that's correct i understand ms hill's point also that the interests of justice prong does examine the truth certainly but is goes much broader than that i think  the interest of justice prong is also concerned with the finding of guilt or innocence through a fair process and certainly no one would consider eight fair trial trial to be fair even if the witness told the truth president right right to complete my answer to your question and i hope address judge duncan's question as well the only other evidence in this case that there was a forgery on the forms and that was the crux of the evidence on the wire fraud and on the mail fraud charges the only other evidence of forgery was the testimony of ms green's mother who said that the signatures on these forms are not genuine she could not identify those signatures when i cross examined her she was unable to distinguish between any of the admitted the genuine ones versus the allegedly forged ones so without any direct evidence of forgery i don't see how we can conclude that courtney green of the other evidence that was put forward by the government in support of their theory that this was not an authorized transfer of funds was consistent with our point in our defense that what was really intended here was to make a generous gift to a lifelong friend without investigator statement was the government's claim that they had to search through all of my client's e mails to show some back and forth between her and the seed and when the other evidence in the case showed that the mother had access to that e mail account and that she and her son had actually wiped all the drives so all the other evidence that we're talking about that would support a conviction that ms hill that the government has talked about has vulnerabilities that the hearsay cannot