fact or issue that justified its admission into evidence.” United States v. Curley, 639 F.3d 50, 57 (2d Cir.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Because the only fact that the Plaskett statement tends to prove is that Plaskett and Barnes killed McNeil, the central fact at issue on the trial, there was no Rule 403 error in its admission. Barnes argues that McNeil’s statement of intent to kill Barnes was irrelevant. To the contrary, the statement was highly probative in establishing Barnes’s own motive to murder McNeil. In a pro se submission, Barnes further argues that the district court erred in admitting McNeil’s hearsay statement under Fed.R.Evid. 804(b)(8) (creating exception for statements against penal interest), citing United States v. Butler, 71 F.3d 243, 253 (7th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). While Butler does not control this court,
recognizing exception holding that nonself inculpatory statements are not statements against penal interest under fedrevid 804b3 holding that the issue of inconsistencies in witness statements are properly reserved for the eventual trial in mexico holding 804b3 exception does not cover statements that possibly could or maybe might lead to eventual criminal liability holding the frsa preemption exception did not cover regulation by municipal ordinance