In the case “Williams v. United States, 512 US 594) the dependant use as an argument the provision of FRE 804 which is the hear say rule claiming that the testimony of the wetness was a statement against interest. The finding of the second circuit court of the court of appeals was right as the statement against interest in this particular case does apply in the hearsay rule. The statement of interest according to James Euale, Dianne Martin, Nora Rock, & Jillan Sadeck (1998) are “ statements made by a declarant that are against his or her best interests, whether property, pecuniary(financial), or penal interests” (p. 4).
These kinds of statements according to Euale, Martin, Rock, and Sadeck are considered reliable but certain conditions must be applied for it to be admissible in court. In relation to hearsay rule however, this rule forbids statement against interests to be admissible evidence in court. But there are exceptions to this rule, among these exceptions according to Euale, Martin, Rock, and Sadek are the following: as soon as declarant makes the statement, he or she must feel the gravity of such admission.Another is if the declarant is unavailable for justifiable reasons such as death, physical disability and so forth. However, the statement against interest in the case mentioned is an exception to the rule because according to Paul Bergman and Sara J. Berman-Berrett, “the hearsay rule makes out-of -court statement improper only if they are offered as evidence that what was said is true” (p.
343). Bergman and Berrett emphasized that “if an out-of-court statement is relevant regardless of whether or not it is true, the statement is nonhearsay and is admissible.The US Supreme Court final holding on the issue of “statements against interest in relation to the hearsay rule in the case Williamson v. United States stated that “The nine circuit confirmed this distinction by holding that inculpatory statements were admissible because they were not made in custody, but rather were spontaneous statements made to a trusted advisor and were made as the events were occurring” (reference: United v.
Layton, 720 F 2nd 548 ninth cir. 1983).
