admissible against whom and what interest? Not jtgain.
Admissible by jtgain as evidence supporting his innocence, since it’s a statement by me against my penal interest, and I’m unavailable.
edit: anyway, I don’t think that was your original point was it?
Corroborative evidence in jtgain’s case would be that TT not only said he himself did it, but the evidence of the purchased ticket and airline records of a subsequent flight to toasty freedom?
But once the policeman says “he mumbled something like ‘yes I did it’ to me” - then does that not open the door for the cross-examination “but didn’t he tell you clearly and emphatically 20 times before and after that saying he did NOT do it?”
(Which suggests unless the prosecution has a clear and unambiguous admission, they likely won’t want such a questionable witness on the stand?)
Good point except that TT’s original point was that it wasn’t hearsay at all NOT that it was admissible as a hearsay exception.
Wow, the thread shows nothing new added, but I click anyways and find out I’m on trial. 
Anyways, you are right, “admission by a party opponent” and “statements against interest” are two separate hearsay exceptions (I’ll admit that I don’t understand the distinction between exceptions to hearsay and non-hearsay. Sure sometimes one is only admissible for impeachment and not for the truth of the matter asserted, but the jury hears it anyways and will draw from it).
Statements against interest is only available when the declarant is unavailable, but if he is available and: the Defendant, you can impeach him with a party admission, or if he is not, a prior inconsistent statement.
My larger point was that the exceptions (or non-hearsay) are there because those particular out of court statements bear some indicia of reliability that the non-exceptions do not have.
If I say I didn’t kill someone, well, so what, everyone says that, guilty or not.
If I say I DID kill someone, well, that’s not something innocent people say, only guilty ones. (so goes the theory).
I’m not 100% in agreement with that theory. In my experience, people tend to put themselves at the centre of events, regardless of guilty or not guilty. (What Kahneman and Tversky called the “fundamental error of attribution”).
Add that to the facts that (in AUS) most of the prisoners are mentally ill, and that poor judgement is a characteristic of mental illness, and I’d say that,
People are notoriously unreliable when making statements about themselves.
Anyway, since ‘verbaling’ was banned, it has been very rare for a court case to turn on unsubstantiated confession of guilt (VIC, AUS).
Of course all this ignores the fact that the ultimate decision will be made by twelve unqualified people who will have sat through weeks of claims, counter claims and obscure legal arguments.
I was once on a jury and in one of our cases we all agreed that the prosecuting counsel was a bumbling incompetent. The defence wasn’t a lot better either, we thought, and spent a good deal of time (It pays to hang it out as long as possible) arguing about what various witnesses, including the police, had really thought.
We eventually overrode one recalcitrant juror and found the guy guilty, and we were much relived when we heard he had a string of previous convictions for similar crimes.
There have been several “Mr. Big” cases in Canada, where the RCMP have attempted to solve cases by the ruse of pretending to be an underworld figure that wants to be the defendant’s friend. Typically they start with parties, hiring the guy to do little jobs, and so on. they they spring the bit - “If you want to be part of our organization, prove you’re a bad-ass.” they try to get the guy admitting he killed so-and-so, and if possible, corroboration like where the body is.
Of course, the counter argument is the guy will brag about the murder he pulled even if he didn’t. It works better when he doesn’t give away the actual location of the body.
It can have unfortunate results. they tried pulling it on the mother of a disappeared little girl, Tori Stafford, only to find later the mother had nothing to do with the crime. There was a case in BC where the mark became so afraid of his “underworld friend” and the threats that he shot him, and was charged with shooting a policeman.
Most other countries don’t recognize this sort of admission as valid, since it is tricked out of someone in a situation where they may be fearful or inclined to boast.
Then there’s the Christine Jessop “Redrum the Innocent” case. Guy Paul Morin was eventually convicted, after 8 years and two trials, before the third ended abruptly with new DNA technology evidence showing he was innocent. Major influence in convicting him? Alleged jailhouse confessions to “cooperative” fellow inmates who testified he had confessed in return for favourable treeatment. Usually, evidence of a jailhouse confession is proof the authorities have no real case.
Most of the obscure legal arguments should be taking place outside the presence of the jury.