out to pin the crime on someone who, by his own account, had absolutely nothing to do with it. Applying the second prong of the Gaither test, we think that the issue which Ms. Bradford was ready to address — an admission by Armstrong that he was the man who shot the victims — goes to the central issue in the case. By all accounts, only one man did the shooting. Any admission by Armstrong that he was that man made it less likely that Ford did it. “[The] principle which states that an average person will not acknowledge the existence of a fact that is counter to his interest unless he knows it to be true [applies], as a matter of logic, [to] declarations against penal interest ... as well as [to] ... statements against pecuniary or proprietary interest.” Laumer, supra, 409 A.2d at 196 (<HOLDING>). There was, however, substantial other
holding that nonself inculpatory statements are not statements against penal interest under fedrevid 804b3 holding that exclusion of hearsay statements violated due process even though statements were not admissible under mississippi law which did not recognize declarations against penal interest as a exception to the rule against hearsay holding declarations against penal interest admissible where certain conditions are met 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 holding that only selfinculpatory aspects of hearsay statement but not other parts of statement are admissible under exception for statements against penal interest