willingness to plead guilty and the results of his polygraph exam conducted by a Missouri State Highway Patrol officer. Hall contends this character evidence showed he was willing to accept responsibility. “[T]he Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require that the sentencer, in all but the rarest kind of capital case, not be precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant’s character ... the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death.” Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586, 604, 98 S.Ct. 2954, 57 L.Ed.2d 973 (1978). In certain cases, the need and reliability of the evidence mandates the evidence be admitted in the punishment phase, notwithstanding an exclusionary rule. See Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95, 97, 99 S.Ct. 2150, 60 L.Ed.2d 738 (1979) (<HOLDING>). Even if Lockett and Green mandated that the
holding exculpatory statements by a third party should have been admitted in the punishment phase notwithstanding the hearsay rule holding that the rejection of the exculpatory hearsay testimony of a government witness was in error particularly in view that accusatory hearsay was admitted recognizing that the united states constitution may require courts to admit exculpatory hearsay statements that do not fall within any recognized hearsay exception holding that as a general rule a defendant cannot create exculpatory evidence by introducing selfserving hearsay statements made by the defendant to another holding that the hearsay rule is not suspended in the sentencing phase