have been admis sible as a party admission, but his comment about what “they” might have wanted was more problematic. The Third Circuit concluded that someone not identified in the record had made a statement to the supervisor which he then related to the plaintiff. In order for the plaintiff’s testimony to be admissible, there had to be a basis for admitting the statement that “they” had made. Failing to establish a foundation to identify the unknown “they,” and thus failing to identify the “they,” the plaintiff did not meet the evidentiary requirements of both Federal Rules of Evidence 801(d)(2)(D) and 805. Id. at 1002; see Abrams v. Lightolier Inc., 50 F.3d 1204, 1216 (3rd Cir.1995) (discussing Carden); Cedeck v. Hamiltonian Fed. Savs. & Loan Ass’n, 551 F.2d 1136 (8th Cir.1977) (<HOLDING>). Though the evidence is to be viewed in the
holding that the victims statement was inadmissible when made two to three hours after victim was allegedly raped because the victims testimony supported the conclusion that her statement was made with conscious reflection holding that in employees age discrimination suit against former employer supervisors statement to employee was not hearsay even though the statement was offered for its truth because the statement was an admission by a party opponent holding that defendant who introduced hearsay statement waived objection to admission of another part of same statement holding that plaintiffs testimony in employment discrimination case about statement made to her by manager was inadmissible hearsay because it included statement made by others who were unidentified holding that a hearsay statement can itself be considered in first determining if a conspiracy existed when the statement was made