that state-of-mind expressions are hearsay even if they are offered only to establish the existence of the relevant states of mind. Indeed, Rule 803(3), which creates an exception to the hearsay rule for such statements rather than excluding the statements from the definition of hearsay, makes sense only in this light. 4 . In cases where interviewees are likely to lie for personal reasons, anonymous surveying can help minimize this risk. 5 . Three of the cases cited as admitting memory surveys are inapposite because they involve review of either administrative or congressional decisions, both of which can be based on evidence that would be inadmissible in a court of law. See Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC, 520 U.S. 180, 181, 195, 202-03, 117 S.Ct. 1174, 137 L.Ed.2d 369 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n v. State Farm
holding that we must uphold any of the aljs factual findings that are supported by substantial evidence and we owe substantial deference to inferences drawn from these facts holding that reasonable inferences cannot be drawn from conjecture or speculative evidence holding that there was no evidence or inferences to be drawn from the evidence to support the damage award holding that congress has drawn reasonable inferences based on substantial evidence when it had before it evidence including some memory surveys holding that in reviewing sufficiency of evidence in juvenile adjudication the appellate court considers the evidence most favorable to the judgment and the reasonable inferences drawn therefrom and affirms if those inferences constitute substantial evidence