which the declarant intends to assert is different from the matter to be proved, but the matter asserted, if true, is circumstantial evidence of the matter to be proved”); United States v McGlory, 968 F2d 309, 332 (CA 3, 1992), cert den 507 US 962; 113 S Ct 1388; 122 L Ed 2d 763 (1993) (“statements containing express assertions not offered for their truth may contain implied assertions that qualify as hearsay because the truth of the implied assertions is at issue and relevant to guilt”); United States v Palma-Ruedas, 121 F3d 841, 857 (CA 3, 1997) (statements offered to support an implied assertion are inadmissible hearsay); Park v Huff, 493 F2d 923, 928 (CA 5, 1974), withdrawn on other grounds 506 F2d 849 (CA 5, 1975) (en banc), cert den 423 US 824; 96 S Ct 38; 46 L Ed 2d 40 (1975) (<HOLDING>); Lyle v Koehler, 720 F2d 426 (CA 6, 1983)
holding that the verbal act doctrine applied to the testators outofcourt statement acknowledging his signature on the will because the existence of that statement was material to determining the validity of the witnesss signature holding that the outofcourt statement by the victims mother which was admitted when the mother refused to testify at trial was inadmissible under residual hearsay exception in mil revid 804b5 because a much of her statement was double or triple hearsay that was most unreliable and b the circumstances surrounding the making of the statement were not supported by any particularized guarantees of trustworthiness holding that a hearsay statement can itself be considered in first determining if a conspiracy existed when the statement was made holding that when the possibility is real that an outofcourt statement which implies the existence of the ultimate fact in issue was made with assertive intent it is essential that the statement be treated as hearsay if a direct declaration of that fact would be so treated holding that anonymous statement was admissible as a statement by a partys agent under rule 801d2d and noting that a district court should be presented with sufficient evidence to conclude that the person who is alleged to have made the damaging statement is in fact a party or an agent of that party