Opinion ID: 2609334
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Williamson and Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(3)

Text: In Williamson, the Supreme Court held that a statement for purposes of Fed. R.Evid. 804(b)(3) is limited to an individual self-inculpatory remark. See Williamson, 512 U.S. at 599-601, 114 S.Ct. 2431. The Williamson Court began its analysis by acknowledging that a statement may have a broad meaning, such as a report or narrative, or may mean more narrowly a single declaration or remark. Id. at 599, 114 S.Ct. 2431. The Williamson Court explained that, although the text of the rule does not answer the question of which meaning of statement should be followed, the principle behind the Rule supports the more narrow reading. Id. According to the Court's interpretation of Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(3), the rule: does not allow admission of non-self-inculpatory statements, even if they are made within a broader narrative that is generally self-inculpatory. Id. at 600-01, 114 S.Ct. 2431. As a result of Williamson, statements that are collaterally neutral and related to the inculpatory remark are not admissible under the federal rule. In his concurring opinion, Justice Kennedy strongly disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(3). See Williamson, 512 U.S. at 611-21, 114 S.Ct. 2431 (Kennedy, J., concurring). Justice Kennedy summarized the three generally accepted, competing views regarding the admissibility of a declarant's statements that are collateral, related declarations to the directly inculpatory statement. See id. at 611-12, 114 S.Ct. 2431. Dean Wigmore argued, as do the People here, that every fact contained in the statement should be admitted because `the statement is made under circumstances fairly indicating the declarant's sincerity and accuracy. Id. at 612, 114 S.Ct. 2431 (quoting 5 J. Wigmore, Evidence, § 1465, at 271 (3d ed.1940)). Dean McCormick took a more guarded view than did Dean Wigmore by arguing that collateral statements of a neutral character should be admitted, while collateral statements of a self-serving character should not. See id. (summarizing Dean McCormick's view and citing C. McCormick, Law of Evidence § 256, at 552-53 (1954)). Professor Jefferson, taking the most narrow view of the three, argued that only the proof of the fact against interest should be admitted. See id. (summarizing Professor Jefferson's view and citing Jefferson, Declarations Against Interest: An Exception to the Hearsay Rule, 58 Harv. L.Rev. 1, 62-63 (1944)). Concluding that the majority's view was too narrow, Justice Kennedy advocated an approach similar to Dean McCormick's perspective.