corroborative or corroborated by other evidence. We rely particularly on the fact that the former testimony was largely against DeVerney and Greenleaf s penal interest, and that the prosecution, as well as the co-defen dant, had full opportunity and motive to expose by cross-examination those parts of the testimony that were exculpatory or that attempted to shift blame to others. III. The state also seeks reversal of the trial court’s exclusion of portions of the statements made to police by DeVerney, Green-leaf, and John Steven Martin. The court ruled, although apparently subject to later reconsideration, that only the self-inculpatory parts of the statements would be admissible, and that all references to Aubid would be redacted. See State v. Ford, 539 N.W.2d 214, 227 (Minn.1995) (<HOLDING>). Unsworn, ex parte statements made during
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 holding also that only a childs first statement made is admissible under the exception holding declarations against penal interest admissible where certain conditions are met 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