Statements Against Interest Can Come Back To Haunt You
Many business owners and managers are unaware that emails, text messages, voice mail messages, social media posts and even casual conversations can come back to haunt them in the event of a lawsuit. This is true even when these so-called “statements against interest” are made “off the record,” in informal settings, and outside of the workplace.
Statements (either written or oral) made out of court, which are offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, are considered hearsay. Because the statements were made outside of the courtroom and not subject to cross-examination, they are considered untrustworthy and unreliable and, thus, are typically not admissible at trial. However, many hearsay exceptions exist under both the New Jersey Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Exception for Statements Against Interest
Statements against interest are one exception to the rule prohibiting the admissibility of hearsay testimony. Under New Jersey Rule of Evidence 803(c)(25), a statement against interest is defined as:
A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary, proprietary, or social interest, or so far tended to subject declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid declarant’s claim against another, that a reasonable person in declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless the person believed it to be true. Such a statement is admissible against an accused in a criminal action only if the accused was the declarant.
Under the New Jersey Rules of Evidence, the rationale for why such an out-of-court statement should be considered sufficiently reliable to qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule is that people don’t typically say unfavorable things about themselves unless they are true. As explained by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in State v. White, 158 N.J. 230 (1999): “The statement-against-interest exception is based on the theory that, by human nature, individuals will neither assert, concede, nor admit to facts that would affect them unfavorably. Consequently, statements that so disserve the declarant are deemed inherently trustworthy and reliable.”
Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) includes a similar exception for statements made by a declarant who is unavailable as a witness at the time of trial.
Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) defines a statement against interest as a statement that:
A reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability; and the statement is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness, if it is offered in a criminal case as one that tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability.
The Advisory Committee’s Note to the Federal Rules of Evidence similarly states, “The circumstantial guarantee of reliability for declarations against interest is the assumption that persons do not make statements which are damaging to themselves unless satisfied for good reason that they are true.”
Of course, the statement against interest exception is not the only way that litigants can get around the hearsay rule. When involved in a business dispute, it is important to always remember that your emails, text messages, voice mail messages, social media posts and informal conversations can negatively impact imminent or pending litigation.
Redefining Labor Relations: NLRB's Pivot from Abruzzo’s Memoranda
On February 14, 2025, the Office of General Counsel (OGC) of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) under Acting General Counsel William B. Cowen issued Memorandum 25-05, “New Process for More Efficient, Effective, Accessible and Transparent Case handling.” The Memorandum rescinds nearly all of the Memoranda issued by his direct predecessor, Jennifer Abruzzo, setting the […]
If you purchase real property from a foreign person or entity, you may be required to withhold taxes from your payment to the seller under the Foreign Investment in Real Property Tax Act (FIRPTA). The federal tax law is designed to ensure that foreign sellers pay any applicable capital gains tax on profits realized from […]
Does Your Homeowners Insurance Provide Adequate Coverage?
Your home is likely your greatest asset, which is why it is so important to adequately protect it. Homeowners insurance protects you from the financial costs of unforeseen losses, such as theft, fire, and natural disasters, by helping you rebuild and replace possessions that were lost While the definition of “adequate” coverage depends upon a […]
Understanding the Importance of a Non-Contingent Offer
Making a non-contingent offer can dramatically increase your chances of securing a real estate transaction, particularly in competitive markets like New York City. However, buyers should understand that waiving contingencies, including those related to financing, or appraisals, also comes with significant risks. Determining your best strategy requires careful analysis of the property, the market, and […]
Fred D. Zemel Appointed Chair of Strategic Planning at Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC
Business Transactional Attorney Zemel to Spearhead Strategic Initiatives for Continued Growth and Innovation Little Falls, NJ – February 21, 2025 – Scarinci & Hollenbeck, LLC is pleased to announce that Partner Fred D. Zemel has been named Chair of the firm’s Strategic Planning Committee. In this role, Mr. Zemel will lead the committee in identifying, […]
Novation Agreement Process: Step-by-Step Guide for Businesses
Big changes sometimes occur during the life cycle of a contract. Cancelling a contract outright can be bad for your reputation and your bottom line. Businesses need to know how to best address a change in circumstances, while also protecting their legal rights. One option is to transfer the “benefits and the burdens” of a […]
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.
Statements Against Interest - What You Say Can Come Back to Haunt You
Author: Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC
Statements Against Interest Can Come Back To Haunt You
Many business owners and managers are unaware that emails, text messages, voice mail messages, social media posts and even casual conversations can come back to haunt them in the event of a lawsuit. This is true even when these so-called “statements against interest” are made “off the record,” in informal settings, and outside of the workplace.
Statements (either written or oral) made out of court, which are offered to prove the truth of the matter asserted, are considered hearsay. Because the statements were made outside of the courtroom and not subject to cross-examination, they are considered untrustworthy and unreliable and, thus, are typically not admissible at trial. However, many hearsay exceptions exist under both the New Jersey Rules of Evidence and the Federal Rules of Evidence.
Exception for Statements Against Interest
Statements against interest are one exception to the rule prohibiting the admissibility of hearsay testimony. Under New Jersey Rule of Evidence 803(c)(25), a statement against interest is defined as:
A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant’s pecuniary, proprietary, or social interest, or so far tended to subject declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid declarant’s claim against another, that a reasonable person in declarant’s position would not have made the statement unless the person believed it to be true. Such a statement is admissible against an accused in a criminal action only if the accused was the declarant.
Under the New Jersey Rules of Evidence, the rationale for why such an out-of-court statement should be considered sufficiently reliable to qualify as an exception to the hearsay rule is that people don’t typically say unfavorable things about themselves unless they are true. As explained by the Supreme Court of New Jersey in State v. White, 158 N.J. 230 (1999): “The statement-against-interest exception is based on the theory that, by human nature, individuals will neither assert, concede, nor admit to facts that would affect them unfavorably. Consequently, statements that so disserve the declarant are deemed inherently trustworthy and reliable.”
Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) includes a similar exception for statements made by a declarant who is unavailable as a witness at the time of trial.
Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3) defines a statement against interest as a statement that:
A reasonable person in the declarant’s position would have made only if the person believed it to be true because, when made, it was so contrary to the declarant’s proprietary or pecuniary interest or had so great a tendency to invalidate the declarant’s claim against someone else or to expose the declarant to civil or criminal liability; and the statement is supported by corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate its trustworthiness, if it is offered in a criminal case as one that tends to expose the declarant to criminal liability.
The Advisory Committee’s Note to the Federal Rules of Evidence similarly states, “The circumstantial guarantee of reliability for declarations against interest is the assumption that persons do not make statements which are damaging to themselves unless satisfied for good reason that they are true.”
Of course, the statement against interest exception is not the only way that litigants can get around the hearsay rule. When involved in a business dispute, it is important to always remember that your emails, text messages, voice mail messages, social media posts and informal conversations can negatively impact imminent or pending litigation.
Let`s get in touch!
Sign up to get the latest from the Scarinci Hollenbeck, LLC attorneys!
