word is not subject to cross-examination; and he is not available in order that his demeanor and credibility may be assessed by the jury. [Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284, 298, 93 S.Ct. 1038, 1047, 35 L.Ed.2d 297 (1973) citing California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149, 158, 90 S.Ct. 1930, 26 L.Ed.2d 489 (1970).] However, there exist a number of exceptions to the hearsay rule that provide for the admission of statements because they exhibit certain indicia of reliability that overcome or outweigh the normal risks associated with the inherent dangers of hearsay statements. Thus where statements display “a circumstantial probability of trustworthiness,” 5 Wigmore, supra §§ 1420-22, they are generally admissible. See, e. g., Nicholson v. United States, D.C. App., 368 A.2d 561 (1977) (<HOLDING>). The declaration against penal interest
holding in a criminal case that a statement by an unavailable declarant was not admissible as a declaration against his penal interest and was not admissible under rule 804b5 either holding hearsay admissible in revocation hearings holding spontaneous utterance admissible holding that even in separate trial other crimes evidence would not have been admissible and identification testimony would have been admissible holding inconsistent out of court statements otherwise admissible not admissible against government in criminal prosecution