Opinion ID: 1256271
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Is the statement trustworthy?

Text: Although a hearsay statement is not specifically covered by any of the 23 pigeonhole exceptions, it may be admissible under the residual exception if it possesses circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness equivalent to [6] those required for admission under the enumerated exceptions. This threshold determination has been called the most significant requirement [7] of admissibility under Rule 803(24). Courts and commentators have struggled with the meaning of this requirement, and certain factors are acquiring recognition as significant in guiding the trial judge's determination of the proffered statement's trustworthiness. Among these factors are (1) assurance of personal knowledge of the declarant of the underlying event, United States v. Barlow, 693 F.2d 954, 962 (6th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 945, 103 S.Ct. 2124, 77 L.Ed.2d 1304 (1983); United States v. Carlson, 547 F.2d 1346, 1354 (8th Cir.) (applying Federal Rule 804(b)(5)), cert. denied, 431 U.S. 914, 97 S.Ct. 2174, 53 L.Ed.2d 224 (1976); (2) the declarant's motivation to speak the truth or otherwise, Huff v. White Motor Corp., 609 F.2d 286, 292 (7th Cir.1979); (3) whether the declarant ever recanted the testimony, United States v. Barlow, 693 F.2d 954, 962 (6th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 945, 103 S.Ct. 2124, 77 L.Ed.2d 1304 (1983); and (4) the practical availability of the declarant at trial for meaningful cross-examination, M. Graham, Handbook of Federal Evidence § 803.24 (1981). See also United States v. McPartlin, 595 F.2d 1321, 1350 (7th Cir.) (dictum), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 833, 100 S.Ct. 65, 62 L.Ed.2d 43 (1979); 4 D. Louisell & C. Mueller, Federal Evidence § 472 (1980) (the `trustworthiness' of statements offered under Rule 803(24) is slightly less a matter of concern where the declarant in fact testifies and is subject to cross-examination). None of these factors, alone or in combination, may conclusively establish or discount the statement's circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness. The trial judge should focus upon the factors that bear on the declarant at the time of making the out-of-court statement and should keep in mind that the peculiar factual context within which the statement was made will determine its trustworthiness. In making his determination of whether the proffered statement possesses equivalent circumstantial guarantees of trustworthiness, the trial judge must include in the record not only his conclusion but also his reasoning in reaching it. Findings of fact and conclusions of law as to the trustworthiness requirement must appear in the record. Again, if the trial judge examines the circumstances and determines that the proffered testimony does not meet the trustworthiness requirement, his inquiry must cease upon his entry into the record of his findings and conclusions, and the testimony may not be admitted pursuant to Rule 803(24). If the trial judge's analysis leads him to the conclusion that the trustworthiness element is satisfied, he must proceed to the next inquiry.