trustworthiness,” 448 U.S. at 65, 100 S.Ct. 2531, rather than the standard set forth in Rule 804(b)(3). However, the two analyses are similar, and under either standard the circumstances in this case were sufficient to corroborate the reliability of O’Reilly’s statement. The fact that the jury heard a recording of O’Reilly making his statements eliminates the risk that the statements were inaccurately relayed to the jury (Johnson does not challenge the authenticity of the recording). O’Reilly and Nix-Bey were friends and confidants, as evidenced by testimony from Nix-Bey that even before the two of them became cellmates, they saw each other every day at meals, engaged in numerous social activities together, and worked together on O’Reilly’s legal matters. See Franklin, 415 F.3d at 548 (<HOLDING>). O’Reilly was unaware that he was being
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 recognizing under ohio v roberts analysis that closeness of relationship between declarant and informant bolsters trustworthiness of statement against penal interest holding that only selfinculpatory aspects of hearsay statement but not other parts of statement are admissible under exception for statements against penal interest holding that the position of special trust is not dependent on the closeness of the defendants relationship with the child holding that victims statements were hearsay admissible under the state of mind exception to the hearsay rule and constitutionally permissible under ohio v roberts citations omitted