the extent they sought to cross-examine a document custodian, it was for purposes of asking whether the custodian had verified the authenticity of signatures on loan documents with the purported author. At no time did the defendants ever challenge the declarations as they related to the bank statements. As they pertained to the bank statements, the declarations merely stated that the bank statements were made at or near the time of the occurrence of the matters contained in the bank statements by someone with knowledge of the matters, that the bank statements were kept in the course of the regularly conducted activity of the bank, that they were made as a regular practice of the bank, and that any duplicates were accurate copies of the originals. {See, e.g., d 1380, 1389 (3d Cir.1992) (<HOLDING>). Any Crawford violation in admitting the Rule
holding that the erroneous admission of a hearsay statement that identified the defendant as the shooter was harmless where the defendant never contested that he shot the gun but claimed only that he shot in selfdefense holding the defendant was not entitled to a charge of involuntary manslaughter where there was no evidence that he involuntarily pulled his gun and shot the victim noting the act must be unintentional to constitute criminal negligence holding that the trial court did not err in charging the jury that the defendant was in the custody of the victim officer when he shot and killed the officer due to the undisputed evidence presented at trial including the defendants pretrial statement to police admitting that fact holding that although the first shot might have been justified in selfdefense a second shot to the victims body cannot be so justified when danger of death or great bodily harm ceases holding that the erroneous admission of dna evidence is never harmless