she did not remember demanding money of the store clerk and states that her companion told the clerk to open the cash register. Yet, according to the clerk’s testimony, it was she, the female robber, who demanded money. She emphasized her drunken state and implied that her accomplices threatened her. Because Miles may reasonably have thought such a statement would decrease her practical exposure to criminal liability, the statement was not reliable as being against her penal interest. Cf. Williamson, 512 U.S. at 601, 114 S.Ct. at 2435 (stating that court “may not just assume ... that a statement is self-inculpatory because it is part of a fuller confession, and this is especially true when the statement implicates someone else”); id. at 604, 114 S.Ct. at 2437 (O’Connor, J., concurring) (<HOLDING>); Earnest, 87 F.3d at 1134 (noting that proper
holding improperly admitted testimony was cumulative to the other properly admitted evidence and was therefore harmless holding that codefendants statement was not properly admitted because a reasonable person in declarants position might even think that implicating someone else would decrease his practical exposure to criminal liability at least as far as sentencing goes holding that discrepancy between declarants testimony at preliminary hearing compared to his translated statement offered at trial went to weight not admissibility of statement holding that appellants statement i think i need a lawyer     is just as ambiguous as the statement made by the defendant in davis holding that when the testimony relating each of the statements by codefendants was admissible against at least one of the codefendants the statements were not rendered inadmissible because each statement would be hearsay as to the other two defendants